conducted only for the treatment order with SM first. Regarding the difference in change from baseline for TM minus the change for SM, the results (see Supplementary Materials A, Tab 4 related t-test; Supplementary Materials B, Figure SM1 and SM2, Panel 3; Figure 4, Panel 3; Table 2, Panel 3) show that the large differences were very likely positive for desirable arousal and energy, the moderate difference was likely positive for active arousal, the moderate difference was likely negative (TM lower) for tiredness (subscale) and the small difference was possibly positive for calmness. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 20 Place Table 2 here. Magnitude-based inference on outcome measures Thematic construct analysis results indicated TM showing greater improvement in energy for participants than SM, which was cited as relaxing: “I felt that the Thai therapy had an incremental improvement in my energy level which I have to say I am not sure I am feeling now” (whilst receiving SM) (2: 39-40); “Overall I feel I prefer the Thai for the energy and poise it seems to give me. The Swedish is much more relaxing-to-the-point-of-sleepy” (6: 140-141); “I don’t have the same feeling of alignment that I experienced after Thai. “My buzz has gone but I feel relaxed” (after SM). “With Thai I felt buzzed, relaxed and centred all at the same time” (5: 47-49). TM and SM both show benefits for relief of muscular tension: “TM again greatly beneficial and reaching all manner of muscles that rarely get exercised! Great stuff. Feeling quite energised and supple” (7: 22-24); ‘Release of muscular pain and stiffness (SM) (4: 11-12). SM is again shown to have relaxing effects: “The S massage very relaxing, the T massage very awakening. I slept well, the massage definitely helped. It relaxed but woke me up at the same point” (9:24-25). Summary of results. With SM, clear moderate or small changes from baseline were found on four out of eight of the outcome measures (Figure 4, Panel 1). With TM, clear large or moderate changes were found on six out of eight outcome measures (See Figure 4, Panel 2). Finally, when changes were compared between the two massage types, clear large, moderate or small differences in change from baseline were found in favour of TM (See Figure 4, Panel 3). MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 21 Thematic construct analysis showed that TM improved energy in double the participants of SM, and a relief of muscular tension was found in half of those receiving TM compared to a quarter of SM recipients. Both content analysis and thematic analysis showed that SM was more effective than TM for relaxing and destressing effects. TM showed unique categories which were not seen in SM: awakening/rejuvenating, promoting desire to engage in physical activity, improved posture and flexibility, life changing/psychologically stimulating and positivity effects, which contribute to the holistic effect of TM. Eighteen participants (95%) found that their initial reason for being involved in the study was addressed i.e. fatigue or depleted energy. Furthermore, 18 participants (95%) felt it was valuable having weekly sessions. Discussion The results of both TM and SM showed improvement in sleep, relaxing and destressing and relief of muscle aches and pains, with SM being more effective than TM for relaxation and stress. This has been noted in findings of other research into massage therapy (MT) – ‘Massage therapy consists of the application of massage and non-hands-on components, including health promotion and education messages, for self-care and health maintenance’ (Kennedy et al, 2016). Smith et al. (1999), in their study on MT for hospitalised patients, cite improved quality of life results of over 90% for relaxation and sense of wellbeing, along with positive results for reduce muscle tension, psychological support and enhanced sleep. In their meta-analysis, Crawford et al, 2016 found that MT effectively alleviated pain and should be strongly recommended as a MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 22 treatment rather than no treatment. This study also found MT beneficial for healthrelated quality of life and anxiety (Crawford et al, 2016). The results presented in SM1 are a graphical representation of the numerical results presented in the spreadsheet within Supplementary Materials A and B. We have chosen this representation as a condensed way of conveying the results of magnitude-based inference and to reduce the volume of results (presented in the Supplementary Materials) that would otherwise have to be presented in the paper. These results are essential because they present the inferential statistical results from which conclusions are drawn about the effect of the treatments. The caption to SM1 indicates that the line segments represent the chances of the result being positive, the chances of the result being negligible and the chances of the result being negative. Improved sleep was found in the results of in both TM and SM, although twice the number of participants cited SM as improving sleep and/or sleep inducing. SM promoted relaxation and alleviation of stress in 100% of participants (at crossover, 50% at final interviews), surpassing their expectations: “Very relaxing. Good to have time to think and know my body is being distressed. Felt very relaxed afterwards” (160, 10: 4-5). Other studies also cite