The Resminostat Truth Your Folks Does Not Want One To Know

This composite score can be directly interpreted in standard deviation (SD) units. Regarding data analysis, we provide descriptive statistics as mean (SD), unless otherwise noted (eg, median and interquartile range or frequency). The effect of the intervention was initially verified using one-way (ie, condition) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on follow-up composite physical activity scores controlling for baseline physical activity values; this was necessary considering the composite measure of physical activity and the interest in examining moderators of intervention efficacy. We expressed variation in physical activity change per condition using histograms of the distribution of individual change scores on the composite measure (posttest Resminostat minus pretest z scores), and we compared the differential distribution of change between groups using a ��2 test. We then performed a series of two-way ANCOVAs on follow-up composite physical activity scores controlling for baseline physical activity values, with condition as one factor and baseline characteristics as the other factor (eg, MS clinical course, disability status, weight status, or medication status). We directly examined the interaction term for identifying the possibility of characteristics modifying the intervention effect on physical activity. We reported partial eta-squared (�Ǧ�2) values for estimating the overall magnitude of effects, with a value of 0.04 representing a practically meaningful effect size.18 Results Sample Characteristics The baseline characteristics of participants in the intervention and waitlist control Baf-A1 datasheet conditions are presented in Table 1. Lumacaftor Overall, the sample primarily was female (76%), had an RRMS disease course (79%), and was overweight or obese (61%). The level of disability of the sample was moderate (median PDDS score, 3.0; interquartile range, 3.0). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in demographic, biometric, or clinical characteristics and physical activity levels, except for use of disease-modifying medications (Table 1); there were fewer people using a disease-modifying medication in the intervention group than in the control group. Of the 82 participants randomized to the control and intervention conditions, 37 completed the intervention condition and 39 completed the control condition.8 The subsequent analyses are based on those who completed the study. Table 1. Baseline participant characteristics for the intervention and control groups Overall Intervention Efficacy The one-way ANCOVA, controlling for baseline physical activity scores, indicated that participants in the behavioral intervention group had significantly higher levels of physical activity compared with individuals in the waitlist control group after the 6-month intervention (F1,73 = 11.26, P