125 Short-term outcomes and six-month follow-up of BEAR 6 To account for possible selective attrition bias and the impact of missing data, sensitivity analyses were performed on complete cases. Details of these sensitivity analyses are provided in the Supplementary Materials (S1) and will be discussed below. Results Descriptive statistics Table 3 presents key characteristics of children and parents across the two treatment groups (BEAR vs CAU). No significant differences were observed between groups for most baseline characteristics, except for the BITSEA problem score. Toddlers in the BEAR group exhibited significantly more psychosocial problems (M = 17.51, SD = 7.46) compared to the CAU group (M = 11.55, SD = 6.04). At baseline, the majority of primary and secondary outcomes did not significantly differ between the treatment groups, with the exception of two parental skills: scaffolding (p = .013) and caregiver affect (p = .007). Parents in the BEAR group had significantly lower baseline scores for both scaffolding (M = 2.37, SD =.91) and caregiver affect (M = 4.06, SD = .80) compared to parents in the CAU group (scaffolding, M = 3.42, SD = .99; caregiver affect, M = 4.92, SD = .79). Attrition analyses Parents who completed the study did not differ from those who did not complete the study in terms of baseline participant characteristics (mother and father’s level of education, father’s country of birth) with exception of mothers’ country of birth [X2 = 7.25 (1), p = .007]. Dutch mothers were more likely to complete follow-up assessments (80.6%) compared to mothers born outside of the Netherlands (44.4%). Primary outcome measure Joint Engagement Repeated Measures (RM) ANOVAs were conducted to examine differences in joint engagement between groups over time. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the results revealed that the interaction between time and group was not significant on total joint engagement. In addition, the effect of group and of time was not significant either, suggesting no change over time in both groups. This suggests that the BEAR intervention was not superior compared to CAU.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw