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.