Recovery outcomes

Clinical dashboard — private access.

Access is verified on the server; data loads only after a correct code.

CFS Recovery · SF-36 Clinical Outcomes
Paired baseline → follow-up

Patient-reported outcomes, measured the standard way.

mean improvement across domains
in the current selection (0–100 SF-36)
How to read this dashboard — plain-language guide to the numbers

This dashboard tracks how Thrivers' health changes from their first survey (baseline) to a later one (follow-up), using the SF-36 — a validated, widely used 36-question health survey. Because it's a standard instrument, these results can be compared against published research rather than being a number we invented.

The 0–100 scale

Every score runs from 0 to 100, where higher is always better. It isn't a percentage or a grade — it's a standardized health index. Each person's score in a domain is the average of the questions they answered, so an occasional skipped question doesn't disqualify them.

The eight health domains

Physical functioning — ability to do physical activities like walking, climbing stairs, lifting, bathing and dressing without limitation.
Role limitation (physical) — how much physical health got in the way of work or daily activities (getting less done, limited in what they could do).
Role limitation (emotional) — how much emotional problems, such as anxiety or low mood, got in the way of work or daily activities.
Energy / fatigue — how energetic versus tired and worn-out the person feels. Often the single most important domain for chronic fatigue.
Emotional well-being — overall mood and mental health: nervousness, sadness, calm, and happiness.
Social functioning — how much physical or emotional health interfered with normal social activities with family and friends.
Pain — how much bodily pain the person has, and how much it interferes with normal work.
General health — the person's own overall view of their health and how they expect it to trend.

Reading the before → after change

"Change" is measured within each person — their follow-up score minus their own baseline — and then averaged across the group. A positive number means improvement. As a rough guide on this 0–100 scale, a few points is minor, around 5+ is noticeable, and 10+ is substantial — but the effect-size column is the more rigorous way to judge how big a change really is.

Effect size (Cohen's d)

Effect size expresses the change relative to how much people differ from one another, so it's comparable across domains. The common rule of thumb: about 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium, and 0.8 or above is large. A "large" effect means the typical person moved a lot relative to the spread of the whole group.

The 95% confidence interval

Because this is a sample rather than every client who will ever enroll, the true average change is an estimate with a margin of error. The 95% confidence interval is the range we can be 95% confident contains the real value. The practical test: if the entire range sits above 0, the improvement is statistically reliable rather than chance. A wider range usually just means fewer people in that selection.

The filters

Program separates Academy (monthly) from Platinum (6- or 12-month). Time between is the gap between a person's two surveys. Baseline groups people by how impaired they were at the start — High need, Moderate, or Milder, split into thirds. Narrowing any filter shrinks the sample, so the "n" and the confidence ranges will change accordingly.

Follow-up completion

This panel shows what share of clients return for the second survey. "All clients" includes people who started recently and aren't due yet; "Reached follow-up point" counts only those whose first survey was 12+ months ago — the fairer measure of who actually completed versus who simply isn't due yet.

What this does — and doesn't — prove

Read these as outcomes, not proof of cause. The people measured here improved on real, validated health scores, and that is meaningful. But this is an observational before/after sample with no comparison group, and clients who complete both surveys may differ from those who don't. So the figures show the improvement observed among those who re-measured — they can't, on their own, prove the program alone caused it. Presented transparently, that's still a strong, credible signal of real-world results.

Domain means, baseline → follow-up

grey = Survey 1 · green = Survey 2
Survey 1 Survey 2

Domain detail

distribution of within-person change
Change distribution

All domains

current selection · paired t-statistics
DomainnBaselineFollow-upChange 95% CIEffect size% improved

Follow-up completion

who re-measured · whole program, not affected by filters