Skip to main content

Table 2 Effectiveness comparison: number and percentage of staff agreeing with attitude and competency statements

From: Implementing healthy lifestyle promotion in primary care: a quasi-experimental cross-sectional study evaluating a team initiative

 

Intervention centres (n = 77)

Control centres (n = 43)

P-value 1

P-value 2 adj. by center

n/N

(%)

n/N

(%)

Self-reported attitude

 

There is a need for a lifestyle team or similar initiative at my centre

67/73

(92)

30/39

(77)

0.028a

0.026

It is important that primary care centres offer support regarding healthy living

69/72

(96)

38/39

(97)

1.000b

0.699

Lifestyle counselling is an efficient method to support patients in behaviour change

70/70

(100)

33/37

(89)

0.013b,3

−†

Issues regarding healthy lifestyle promotion are prioritized at my centre

36/69

(52)

7/35

(20)

0.002a,3

<0.0013

Self-reported competency

 

I have sufficient competency to give patients lifestyle advice

65/73

(89)

38/41

(93)

0.744b

<0.0013

During a typical consultation I have sufficient time to discuss healthy living with patients

38/73

(52)

15/40

(38)

0.138a

0.085

There is sufficient competency (knowledge, skills) at my centre to manage issues regarding healthy lifestyle promotion

69/70

(99)

31/38

(82)

0.003b,3

0.0023

Sometimes it is uncomfortable to bring up healthy living with patients

22/73

(30)

13/40

(33)

0.795a

0.760

  1. 1Univariate comparisons by achi-squared test or bFisher’s exact test.
  2. 2Model I: adjusted for the effects of cluster allocation.
  3. †P-value can not be estimated (due to lack of variation in the intervention group).
  4. 3P < 0.05/4 = 0.013 (with Bonferroni adjustment).