Initially, descriptive variables among the 6 participant groups were examined. The results of the examination of descriptive variables showed that:
In the present study, among the 6 participant groups, as Table (1) shows, there is no significant difference in terms of age (p = 0.89). Additionally, participants in terms of education, as shown in Table (2), mostly have a diploma level of education. However, there is no significant difference in education among the 6 groups (p = 0.12). Furthermore, the marital status of the participants was investigated, and according to Table (3), the highest number of participants are single, and there is no significant difference in marital status among the 6 groups (p = 0.55).
Finally, the variables related to substance use were examined among the participants. Table (4) indicated that, except for the variable "number of use per day," there is no significant difference in the other variables among the 6 groups.
Following that, the results of the pre-test and post-test evaluations were examined among the 6 identified groups in terms of depression, anxiety, attentional bias, and craving for drugs (current and induced), with the following results:
The results of participants for the pre-test and post-test evaluations in depression, as shown in Table (5), indicated that in the pre-test and post-test situations, the CBM group had the highest average scores for depression, with the lowest average in the pre-test for the SHAM group, and in the post-test situation, the CBM + TACS group had the lowest average.
According to Table (6), the results of pre-test and post-test evaluations in anxiety showed that in the pre-test and post-test situations, the CBM group had the highest average scores for anxiety, with the lowest average in the pre-test for the SHAM group, and in the post-test situation, the CBM + TACS group had the lowest average.
In the examination of pre-test and post-test results in attentional bias, Table (7) showed that in the pre-test situation, the TACS group with real alpha frequency and in the post-test situation, the TACS group with 10Hz alpha frequency had the highest average scores for attentional bias, with the lowest average in the pre-test and post-test for the CBM + TACS group.
Regarding the results of pre-test and post-test evaluations in craving for drugs, the data in Table (8) indicated that in the pre-test and post-test situations, the TACS group with real alpha frequency had the highest average scores for current drug craving, and the CBM + TACS group had the lowest average. Additionally, Table (9) showed that in the pre-test and post-test situations, the TACS group with real alpha frequency had the highest average scores for induced drug craving, with the SHAM group having the lowest average.
In all pre-test and post-test results, kurtosis and skewness were between + 2 and − 2 for all groups in both situations, indicating a normal distribution of the data.
Is there a difference in the effectiveness of the tACS 10Hz method and the tACS method based on real alpha frequency on craving, anxiety, depression, and attentional bias in individuals with a history of opium use?
The results in Table (10) indicate that the assumption of homogeneity of variances has been confirmed, showing no significant difference in variance of scores for depression, anxiety, attentional bias, current and induced craving among the study groups. The Levene's test probability for homogeneity of variances is higher than 0.05, which is more favorable as the value approaches 1. Regression slope, which signifies the interaction between the covariate and the independent variable, should not be significant. The results indicate that this interaction is not significant (p > 0.05), thus the assumption of regression slope is upheld. The use of covariance analysis is confirmed, and the results of the covariance analysis show that the difference between groups is not significant (p > 0.05).
Is there a difference in the effectiveness of the tACS method and the CBM method on craving, anxiety, depression, and attentional bias in individuals with a history of opium use?
The results in Table (11) demonstrate that the assumptions of homogeneity of variances and regression slope have been confirmed. Therefore, the use of covariance analysis is valid. The results of the covariance analysis show that there is no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05).
Is the combined method of tACS and CBM more effective in reducing craving, anxiety, depression, and attentional bias in individuals with a history of opium use compared to tACS and CBM methods?
The results in Table (12) indicate that the assumptions of homogeneity of variances and regression slope have been confirmed. Therefore, the use of covariance analysis is valid. The covariance analysis showed a significant difference between the groups (p < 0.05).
Based on the results in Table (13), the depression scores show that the group receiving TACS + CBM treatment had a significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to the TACS, CBM, and SHAM groups after controlling for pre-test scores. This difference favored TACS + CBM, with significantly lower depression scores in this group compared to the others. Additionally, no significant difference was observed between the TACS + CBM group and the control group (p > 0.05).
The results in Table (14) demonstrate that the assumptions of homogeneity of variances and regression slope have been confirmed. Therefore, the use of covariance analysis is valid. The covariance analysis indicated a significant difference between the groups (p < 0.05).
Based on the results in Table (15), the anxiety scores show that the group that received TACS + CBM treatment had a significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to the CBM group after controlling for pre-test scores. This difference favored TACS + CBM, with significantly lower anxiety scores in this group compared to the CBM group. Additionally, no significant difference was observed between the TACS + CBM group and the other groups (p > 0.05).
The results in Table (16) indicate that the assumption of homogeneity of variances and regression slope has been confirmed. Therefore, the use of covariance analysis is valid. The covariance analysis showed a significant difference between the groups (p < 0.05).
Based on the results in Table (17), the attentional bias scores show that the group that received TACS + CBM treatment had a significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to the SHAM group after controlling for pre-test scores. This difference favored TACS + CBM, with significantly lower attentional bias scores in this group compared to the SHAM group. Additionally, no significant difference was observed between the TACS + CBM group and the other groups (p > 0.05).
The results in Table (18) demonstrate that the assumptions of homogeneity of variances and regression slope have been confirmed. Therefore, the use of covariance analysis is valid. The covariance analysis did not show a significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05).
Similarly, the results in Table (19) confirm that the assumptions of homogeneity of variances and regression slope have been confirmed. Therefore, the use of covariance analysis is valid. The covariance analysis did not show a significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05).