Skip to main content

Table 4 Potential effects of the yoga intervention

From: Exploring feasibility, perceptions of acceptability, and potential benefits of an 8-week yoga intervention delivered by videoconference for young adults affected by cancer: a single-arm hybrid effectiveness-implementation pilot study

Outcomes

Scale range

Mean score (SD)

F-statistic

p-value

Effect size (ηp2)

Baseline (week 0)

Post-intervention (week 8)

Follow-up (week 16)

Physical

 Single leg balance (s)

–

      

  Right (n = 19)¡,•

0–45

43.46 (6.01)

45.00 (0.00)

43.33 (5.11)

1.313

0.281‡

0.068

  Left (n = 20)¡,•

0–45

43.69 (4.23)

42.96 (6.65)

44.36 (2.86)

2.056

0.167†,‡

0.098

 Sit and reach (cm)

–

      

  Right (n = 21)

–

− 3.14 (14.62)

3.36 (17.86)

2.69 (15.78)

3.959

0.027‡

0.165

  Left (n = 21)

–

− 2.57 (14.17)

2.38 (17.93)

3.02 (16.05)

3.524

0.039

0.150

 Shoulder range of motion (°)

–

      

  Right (n = 21)

–

162.95 (10.13)

165.17 (11.18)

165.36 (9.99)

0.997

0.348†

0.048

  Left (n = 21)

–

161.88 (12.60)

163.38 (13.94)

164.40 (12.04)

1.328

0.274†,‡

0.062

 30-s sit-to-stand (reps) (n =21)

–

14.14 (4.35)

17.19 (5.31)

17.33 (4.71)

8.261

<0.001

0.292

Psychosocial

 RAND-36

       

  Physical functioning (n = 26)

0–100

75.38 (23.41)

77.41 (23.37)

79.04 (18.22)

0.489

0.545†,‡

0.019

  Role limitation due to physical health (n = 24)§

0–100

54.17 (37.35)

51.39 (37.00)

46.88 (42.55)

0.577

0.566‡

0.024

  Role limitation due to emotional problems (n = 26)

0–100

51.28 (39.14)

48.72 (39.14)

52.56 (43.38)

0.121

0.886‡

0.005

  Energy/fatigue (n = 26)

0–100

35.32 (18.13)

40.38 (15.29)

43.08 (14.00)

3.523

0.037

0.124

  Emotional well-being (n = 26)

0–100

60.69 (20.25)

65.38 (18.62)

67.62 (17.25)

2.810

0.070

0.101

  Social functioning (n = 26)

0–100

63.46 (20.89)

71.15 (22.01)

74.52 (19.52)

3.894

0.027‡

0.135

  Pain (n = 25)¡

0–100

74.00 (15.17)

73.50 (18.51)

71.80 (15.28)

0.263

0.770‡

0.011

  General health (n = 26)

0–100

51.15 (21.37)

48.65 (18.84)

51.92 (21.78)

0.844

0.405†

0.033

 FACIT-Fatigue (n = 26)

0–52

30.73 (9.00)

32.50 (9.76)

33.81 (7.92)

2.608

0.097†

0.094

 Brief Resilience Scale (n = 25)§

1–5

3.28 (0.93)

3.36 (0.76)

2.97 (0.23)

3.012

0.074†,‡

0.111

 Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (n = 25)§

0–105

58.48 (22.14)

54.48 (20.03)

55.40 (23.62)

1.626

0.207

0.063

 MBSRQ-AS

       

  Appearance evaluation (n = 25)§

1–5

2.85 (0.79)

2.79 (0.87)

3.03 (0.84)

3.918

0.036†

0.140

  Appearance orientation (n = 25)§

1–5

3.01 (0.63)

2.91 (0.61)

2.94 (0.65)

1.275

0.289

0.050

  Body areas satisfaction scale (n = 25)§

1–5

3.08 (0.58)

3.00 (0.67)

3.03 (0.64)

1.011

0.372

0.040

  Overweight preoccupation (n = 25)§

1–5

2.25 (1.04)

2.27 (0.96)

2.45 (1.10)

2.436

0.098‡

0.092

  Self-classified weight (n = 25)§

1–5

3.42 (0.99)

3.30 (0.91)

3.28 (1.00)

3.108

0.054

0.115

 Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

  Observing (n = 24)§,¡

8–40

25.75 (3.85)

24.63 (4.92)

25.33 (5.01)

1.238

0.299‡

0.051

  Describing (n = 25)§

8–40

24.12 (5.37)

24.56 (6.25)

24.60 (6.44)

0.410

0.666

0.017

  Acting with awareness (n = 25)§

8–40

24.48 (7.18)

23.76 (6.99)

23.80 (6.96)

0.737

0.484

0.030

  Non-judging of inner experience (n = 25)§

8–40

25.48 (7.74)

25.80 (7.57)

26.28 (8.40)

0.273

0.762

0.011

  Non-reactivity to inner experience (n = 25)§

7–35

18.72 (4.65)

20.24 (4.33)

20.32 (4.52)

3.922

0.026‡

0.140

 10-Item Perceived Stress Scale (n = 25)§

0–40

20.64 (7.07)

19.36 (7.12)

17.80 (6.68)

4.912

0.011

0.170

 Group Identification Scale (n = 26)

1–7

–

4.91 (1.00)

–

 

–

–

  1. FACIT functional assessment of chronic illness therapy, MBSRQ-AS Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire-Appearance Scales, reps repetitions, SD standard deviation
  2. §A participant was missing data at one or more time points
  3. †Sphericity has been violated; in these cases, the Greenhouse-Giesser correction was used to inform the p-values and effects sizes
  4. ‡Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was significant at one or more time points
  5. ¡One (or more) univariate outlier(s) was (were) removed
  6. •One (or more) multivariate outlier(s) was (were) removed