Skip to main content

Table 4 Sensitivity analysis

From: Comparative efficacy and acceptability of resilience-focused interventions for nurses: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Studies

Experimental group

Mean (SD)

Control group

Mean (SD)

Std. mean difference

I2

Total effect size [95%CI]

IV, Random, 95%CI

Overall I2

rI2

Bernburg et al. (2019) [52]

2.94 (0.58)

2.76 (0.59)

0.30 [-0.12, 0.73]

0%

-

0.48 [0.35, 0.62]

Chesak et al. (2015) [53]

79.74 (11.82)

75.52 (8.83)

0.40 [-0.23, 1.03]

0%

Grabbe et al. (2020) [38]

31.72 (4.02)

30.54 (4.99)

0.26 [-0.31, 0.82]

0%

Hsieh et al. (2020) [39] a

164.15 (23.16)

153.67 (23.75)

0.44 [0.02, 0.87]

0%

Hsieh et al. (2020) [39]b

158.77 (19.2)

153.67 (23.75)

0.24 [-0.19, 0.66]

0%

Huang et al. (2020) [35] c

94.89 (10.34)

84.75 (11.82)

0.91 [0.49, 1.32]

0%

Janzarik et al. (2022) [50]

73.36 (12.38)

69.33 (12.35)

0.32 [-0.17, 0.82]

0%

Li et al. (2016) [47]

40.21 (4.23)

35.56 (6.73)

0.81 [0.22, 1.40]

0%

Li et al. (2019) [42]

70.58 (8.71)

66.22 (8.65)

0.50 [0.05, 0.94]

0%

Lin et al. (2019) [40]

59.7 (11.87)

53.85 (16.21)

0.41 [-0.01, 0.82]

0%

Yan et al. (2017) [48]

35.11 (7.89)

31.89 (7.01)

0.43 [-0.07, 0.92]

0%

Zarvijani et al. (2021) [44]

55.49 (9.55)

47.56 (9.42)

0.83 [0.33, 1.32]

0%

Sawyer et al. (2023) [49]

3.63 (0.10)

3.54 (0.10)

0.89 [0.41, 1.37]

7%

7%

0.52 [0.38, 0.65]

van der Meer et al. (2020) [51]

26.54 (4.82)

25.49 (5.46)

0.20 [-0.09, 0.49]

22%

10%

0.47 [0.34, 0.61]

Sawyer et al. (2021) [54]

3.79 (0.60)

3.78 (0.65)

0.02 [-0.46, 0.49]

29%

13%

0.45 [0.31, 0.59]

Yang et al. (2021) [43]

77.09 (9.24)

67.69 (8.52)

1.05 [0.58, 1.51]

42%

22%

0.49 [0.34, 0.64]

Yu et al. (2020) [37]

69.45 (8.53)

58.71 (9.87)

1.15 [0.68, 1.63]

52%

31%

0.53 [0.37, 0.69]

Peng et al. (2020) [55]

134.35(13.3)

158.67 (15.21)

-1.67 [-2.40, -0.94]

75%

25%

0.44 [0.22, 0.66]

Turan et al. (2020) [45]

104.83(5.94)

72.00(5.08)

5.79 [4.12, 7.46]

83%

24%

0.54 [0.27, 0.81]

Wang et al. (2019) [41]

60.63(2.30)

50.31(2.50)

4.24 [3.31, 5.17]

89%

30%

0.71 [0.38, 1.03]

Li et al. (2021) [36]

59.23(4.72)

49.33(4.02)

2.26 [1.87, 2.64]

92%

32%

0.81 [0.44, 1.17]

Mao et al. (2021) [46]

69.12(1.69)

60.82(1.66)

4.91 [4.06, 5.76]

94%

35%

1.00 [0.58, 1.42]

Huang et al. (2020) [35] d

99.84 (10.76)

84.75 (11.82)

1.32 [0.89, 1.76]

94%

49%

1.01 [0.61, 1.41]

  1. Note. Overall I2 represents the overall magnitude of inter-study heterogeneity. Heterogeneity among the first 12 resilience-focused interventions was minimal (I2 = 0%), whereas I2 gradually increased during the gradual addition of the other 10 interventions, suggesting that inter-study heterogeneity gradually increased. In this context, rI2 captures the change in heterogeneity when adding RCT i to the initial group of 12 trials with no heterogeneity. The formula can be interpreted as follows: rI2 = I2i - I2j. I2i refers to the heterogeneity calculated after including RCT i to the analysis, where the analysis is initially based on the first 12 RCTs with zero heterogeneity. I2j represents to the value derived from the analysis of the first 12 RCTs, which is characterized by no heterogeneity. Total Effect size (95% CI) represents the overall intervention efficacy after adding to the study, if the value is greater than 0 (less than 0) and the 95% CI does not pass 0 then it means that the resilience-focused intervention has a positive (negative) effect in improving nurses’ resilience. a Biofeedback Training intervention (BT) vs. Treat as usual; b Smartphone-delivered Biofeedback Training interventions (SDBT) vs. Treat as usual; c Positive Psychology-Based Interventive Program (PPBIP) vs. Treat as usual; d Professional Training combined with Positive Psychology Intervention (PPBIP&PT) vs. Treat as usual