Skip to main content

Table 3 Factors associated with ICIT score change (100-point scale) including receptivity (Paths A and C), 2003 to 2010 – Multilevel linear regression† (n = 541*)

From: Impact of Québec’s healthcare reforms on the organization of primary healthcare (PHC): a 2003-2010 follow-up

Level

 

Coeff.

p-values

Organizational

Coercive influence (ref.: Negative or no action)

  
 

Positive

2,192

0,044

 

Normative influence (ref.: Negative or no action)

  
 

Positive

2,266

0,096

 

Mimetic influence (ref.: Negative or no action)

  
 

Positive

1,605

0,093

 

Receptivity (Ref.: Clinic without FMG or NC status that did not express the desire to become FMG or NC)

  
 

Clinic without FMG or NC that expressed the desire to become FMG or NC

4,027

0,000

 

NC

10,056

0,000

 

FMG

16,116

0,000

 

FMG-NC

20,270

0,000

Contextual

Coercive influence (proportion of clinics judging positive HSSC actions)

0,081

0,028

 

Normative influence (proportion of clinics judging positive the influence of professional associations)

-0,124

0,012

 

Mimetic influence (proportion of clinics judging positive the influence of PHC organizations)

0,038

0,244

 

Receptivity (Proportion of receptive clinics)

-0,005

0,846

  1. †Adjusted for ICIT score (2003), proportion of the population aged 65 and over, proportion of the population with low income, number of general practitioners per 100,000 inhabitants and avoidable mortality rates in the HSSC territory.
  2. *Weighted by the number of FTE physicians in the clinic.