Treatment characteristics and course in FTF versus OTT groups matched 1∶1 on the basis of propensity scores.

<p>Note: Values in bold indicate significant associations (p<.01).</p

Adjusted mean differences in PHQ-9, GAD-7 & WSAS measures shown as effect sizes.

<p>To assess non-inferiority between the treatments we used two-sided significance tests and 95% confidence intervals for score differences between treatment groups. The first pane is a key to the other six that show the results for the five strata (analysis approach 2) and for the 1∶1 matched sample (approach 3). The lower limit of the confidence interval (LCL) represents a boundary of non-inferiority. For all three measures, the LCLs were compared with two estimates of statistical uncertainty: small (0.2x pooled SD; inner vertical line closer to line of equivalence) and medium (0.5x pooled SD; outer line). The next six panes display adjusted mean differences in score reduction between OTT and FTF treatment assessing non-inferiority. In strata one to three, the lower confidence limit (LCL) of the adjusted mean difference fell below 0.2 SD on none of the measures, indicating strong evidence that neither treatment was inferior to the other. In stratum four and in the 1∶1 propensity matching, the WSAS LCL exceeded the 0.2 SD threshold, indicating only marginal support for non-inferiority regarding work and social adjustment improvement. The situation was different in stratum five, the group with most highest symptom scores, where the LCL exceeded 0.2 and 0.5 SD for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores and 0.2 SD for the WSAS. This indicates potentially superior symptom reduction in all domains for individuals receiving FTF CBT. The <i>a priori</i> minimally important difference (MID) estimate of 5 points on the PHQ-9 is represented by the extreme limits of the x-axis in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0042916#pone-0042916-g003" target="_blank">Figure 3</a> (−5 favouring FTF and +5 favouring OTT). No estimates or LCL approached this MID estimate. Furthermore, the effect size is small for all the potential differences, including those reaching statistical significance in strata 2 and 3. See: <a href="http://www.psychiatry.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PONE-D-11-20688-Figures.doc" target="_blank">http://www.psychiatry.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PONE-D-11-20688-Figures.doc</a> for colour version.</p

Flow and selection of subject records for inclusion into naïve comparisons and propensity score analyses.

<p>Flow and selection of subject records for inclusion into naïve comparisons and propensity score analyses.</p

Baseline demographic, clinical, and functional characteristics of patients receiving either face-to-face or predominantly telephone based treatments.

*<p>: Significant differences across treatment groups.</p

Logistic regression of OTT versus FTF generating estimates and standard errors for variables included in the propensity score.

<p>Note: Values in bold indicate significant associations (p<.01).</p

Patient characteristics in the five propensity score strata.

<p>Patient characteristics in the five propensity score strata.</p

Cost per session for over-the-telephone (OTT) and face-to-face (FTF) therapies in IAPT during 2009–2010.

<p>Cost per session for over-the-telephone (OTT) and face-to-face (FTF) therapies in IAPT during 2009–2010.</p

Average reductions in PHQ-9, GAD-7 and WSAS scores for FTF versus OTT therapy groups.

<p>Reductions in PHQ-9, GAD-7 and WASAS are each shown in a different pane. Comparisons between the reductions in the FTF and OTT groups shown by paired bars; OTT is always the upper and FTF the lower. These are presented first for the overall sample (adjusted and unadjusted; the first, naïve approach to analysis), then for the five propensity strata, and last for the 1∶1 matching procedure. Other than the first, unadjusted reductions, all average reductions (in the strata comparisons and in the 1∶1 matching) are adjusted for service provider, number sessions administered, and baseline symptom severity for the particular measure (PHQ9, GAD7 or WSAS). See: <a href="http://www.psychiatry.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PONE-D-11-20688-Figures.doc" target="_blank">http://www.psychiatry.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PONE-D-11-20688-Figures.doc</a> for colour version.</p

Overview of bibliographic databases used to identify relevant citations.

*<p>Accessed 29^th February, 2012.</p

Citations reporting incidence of schizophrenia over time in England, 1881–1999, organised by study setting.

†<p><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0031660#s3" target="_blank">Results</a> from Dumfries & Galloway (Scotland) not officially part of present review but included as part of study.</p>‡<p>First time period lies outside the scope of this review, but results presented in table for completeness.</p>∧<p>(+) Increase in rate; (−) decrease in rate; (∼) no change in rate observed.</p