Comparison of the iCBT and sEFM Regarding comparison of the iCBT and sEFM, there were significant difference at T3 (six weeks after T2) in favor of iCBT on the CES-D (−1.83, 95% CI: −3.39 to −0.28, p = 0.02) and marginally significant difference in favor of iCBT on the GAD-7 (−0.79, 95% CI: −1.58 to 0.00, p = 0.05), respectively.
Effects of the iCBT and sEFM compared with those of the waiting list Regarding the CES-D, which is the primary outcome measure, when limiting to those who met the inclusion criteria at baseline assessment, there was a significant difference in favor of the iCBT (−2.09, 95% CI: −3.54 to −0.65, p < 0.01) and an almost significant difference in favor of the sEFM arm (−1.47, 95% CI: −2.95 to 0.00, p = 0.05) as compared with the waiting list arm at T1, respectively.
Regarding the CES-D, which is the primary outcome measure, the intervention effects estimated by the mixed-effects model analysis at T1 (postintervention) were not significant, although the CES-D score at T1 of the iCBT arm was lower with marginal significance as compared with that at T1 of the waiting list arm (−1.28, 95% CI: −2.58 to 0.02, p = 0.05).
Results During postintervention assessment, there were no significant differences between the intervention arms and the control group in the CES-D, although the difference between the iCBT arm and control group was close to significance ( p = 0.05) in favor of iCBT.