approaching significanceP =.06
Similarly, for the ITT sample, the digital program showed superiority to waiting control (d=0.8) and noninferiority to face-to-face CBT ( P =.002), with noninferiority to typed CBT approaching significance ( P =.06).
Similarly, for the ITT sample, the digital program showed superiority to waiting control (d=0.8) and noninferiority to face-to-face CBT ( P =.002), with noninferiority to typed CBT approaching significance ( P =.06).
This reduction was significantly greater than that observed in the waiting control group ( P <.001, d =0.8; Table 5 ), statistically noninferior to the face-to-face therapy control (mean GAD-7 change –6.0, 95% CI –6.6 to –5.5; noninferiority effect P =.002), and approached significance for noninferiority compared with the typed therapy control (mean GAD-7 change –6.6, 95% CI –7.1 to –6.1; noninferiority effect P =.06).