Table 2

Pooled estimates of the final prediction models for treatment success after internet-based VR at 6-month follow-up (stand-alone and blended vestibular rehabilitation (VR) participants; n=202)

PredictorsRegression coefficientORs (95% CI)P value
‘Successful treatment’ 1:
Clinically relevant improvement in VSS-SF score†
Living alone−0.970.38 (0.19 to 0.78)0.01
Presence of a psychiatric disorder0.902.48 (0.86 to 7.16)0.09
‘Successful treatment’ 2:
Clinically relevant improvement in DHI score†
Interaction living alone * blended VR treatment−1.100.33 (0.10 to 1.15)0.08
Living alone0.952.69 (1.04 to 6.45)0.04
Blended VR treatment0.451.57 (0.75 to 3.29)0.23
Age−0.040.96 (0.93 to 1.00)0.03
Middle/high level of education−0.610.54 (0.29 to 1.02)0.06
‘Successful treatment’ 3:
Clinically relevant improvement in both VSS-SF and DHI score§
Interaction more than 2 years since onset * blended VR treatment−1.070.34 (0.09 to 1.25)0.10
More than 2 years since onset0.191.21 (0.46 to 3.16)0.69
Blended VR treatment1.343.82 (0.50 to 29.41)0.45
  • *Age was analysed as a linear predictor in all models, spine regression modelling revealed no non-linear relationship of age with the outcome.

  • †Predictor-treatment interaction with ‘time since onset’ had the lowest p value of all interactions (p=0.19) and was included in the model.

  • ‡Predictor-treatment interaction with ‘living status’ had the lowest p value of all interactions (p=0.09) and was included in the model.

  • §Predictor-treatment interaction with ‘time since onset’ had the lowest p value of all interactions (p=0.10) and was included in the model.

  • DHI, Dizziness Handicap Inventory; VSS-SF, Vertigo Symptom Scale—Short Form.