# Sleep Quality in Older Women: Effects of a Vibration Training Program
## 3 Results  
Table 2 shows the summarised behaviour of the variables analysed in the pre- and post-treatment phases for CG and EG and the total number of individuals. The variables \"hours of sleep\", \"Pittsburgh index\" and \"drug consumption\" were considered, which constitute the basic variables of this study in relation to the designed experiment. In an initial analysis of the possible relationship between the variable hours of sleep, drug consumption, and the Pittsburgh index, we found that these are related in all cases (\(p<0.001\)), finding a significant correlation (\(p<0.001\)) in both the pretest and post-test except in sleeping_hours_pre with drugs consumption and Pittsburg_index_post (Table 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **Pretest** & **Post-Test** & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Pre–Post Test**} \\  & & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Size-Effect** & **F** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Hours of sleep} & Control & \(7.23\pm 1.25\) & \(6.88\pm 1.03\) & 0.083 & \(-0.27\) & 2.307 & 0.135 \\  & Experimental & \(6.33\pm 1.12\) & \(6.94\pm 1.10\) & 0.002 ** & 0.53 & & \\  & \(p\)-value & 0.008 ** & 0.866 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Pittsburgh index} & Control & \(8.08\pm 4.25\) & \(10.54\pm 3.76\) & 0.001 ** & 0.56 & 6.581 & 0.013 * \\  & Experimental & \(8.62\pm 3.99\) & \(4.77\pm 3.76\) & 0.001 ** & \(-0.94\) & & \\  & \(p\)-value & 0.640 & 0.001 ** & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Drug consumption} & Control & \(1.50\pm 1.33\) & \(2.08\pm 1.02\) & 0.008 ** & 0.49 & 2.380 & 0.129 \\  & Experimental & \(1.54\pm 1.36\) & \(1.07\pm 1.27\) & 0.056 & \(-0.36\) & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(p\)-value & 0.919 & 0.003 ** & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{*}p\leq 0.05\), **\(p\leq 0.01\). SD = standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mean and standard deviation of the variables hours of sleep, Pittsburgh index and drug consumption in the pre- and post-treatment phases and behaviour in pre- and post-treatment between groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **Mean** & **SD** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** \\ \hline
1 & Sleeping\_Hours\_pre & 6.78 & 1.26 & 0.600 ** & \(-0.237\) & \(-0.058\) & \(-0.676\) ** & \(-0.100\) \\
2 & Sleeping\_Hours\_pos & 6.91 & 1.05 & & \(-0.282\) * & \(-0.289\) * & \(-0.560\) ** & \(-0.573\) ** \\
3 & Drugs\_consumption\_pre & 1.52 & 1.34 & & & 0.560 ** & 0.634 ** & 0.383 ** \\
4 & Drugs\_consumption\_post & 1.58 & 1.24 & & & & 0.458 ** & 0.760 ** \\
5 & Pittsburgh index\_pre & 8.35 & 4.09 & & & & & 0.541 ** \\
6 & Pittsburgh index\_post & 7.65 & 4.72 & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{*}p\leq 0.05\), **\(p\leq 0.01\). SD = standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean, standard deviation and correlations between the variables. An initial univariate analysis (ANOVAs) was performed to show the differences in the pretest for both groups. The behaviour of the variables studied before applying the treatment allows us to anticipate that although there are no differences in terms of the Pittsburgh index in CG and EG (\(p\) = 0.640) or with respect to drug consumption (\(p\) = 0.919), there was a difference in the behaviour of the hours of sleep between these groups (\(p\) = 0.008) in favour of CG (more hours of sleep in the CG), although, on average, this difference is not excessive. On the other hand, ANOVAs in the post-test showed differences of \(p\) < 0.001 on the Pittsburgh index and \(p\) = 0.003 on drug consumption, both in favour of CG (higher values of \"low sleep quality\" and \"high drugs consumption\"). In CG, comparing the pre- and post-treatment phases, we found that there was no difference for the variable hours of sleep (\(p\) = 0.083, with a small value of [PERSON]'s d), but we did perceive a significant difference between both phases for the Pittsburgh index (\(p\) < 0.001, with a d value of 0.56).