Determinants | Potential score | Number of items | Cronbach’s alpha |
---|---|---|---|
Person | |||
Outcome expectancy | 1 (low) - 5 (high) | 14 | 0.90 |
Self-efficacy (A) | 1 (low) - 5 (high) | 1 | |
Self-efficacy (B) | 1 (low) - 5 (high) | 1 | |
Task responsibility | 1 (low) - 5 (high) | 3 | 0.70 |
Usability of guideline | 1 (low) - 5 (high) | 19 | 0.89 |
Organization | |||
Encouragement of guideline use | 1 (low) - 5 (high) | 3 | 0.73 |
Organizational readiness | 1 (low) - 5 (high) | 6 | 0.61 |
Peer influence (peer support to use the guideline) | 1 (low) - 5 (high) | 4 | 0.68 |
Peer interaction (amount of meeting types in which guideline is addressed) | 0–8 | 8 | 0.68 |
Participative adoption decision | yes vs no | 2 | 1.0 |
Social and administrative legitimacy | |||
Legitimacy of the guideline | 1 (low) - 5 (high) | 9 | 0.63 |
Background variables | |||
Organization type | urban vs regional RHS | 1 | |
Health promotion dept. | within RHS vs not within RHS | 1 | |
Research dept. | within RHS vs not within RHS | 1 | |
Imago of RHS | 1–5 (positive imago) | 2 | 0.74 |
RHS orientation | 1 (project oriented) - 5 (policy oriented) | 1 | |
Professional occupation | health promoter vs policy advisor | 1 | |
Work experience | number of years | 1 | |
Work pressure | 1 (too low) - 5 (too high) | 1 | |
Knowledge of guideline | 7 | 0.65 | |
Subjectively | 0–2 (knowledge of availability and concept) | 2 | 0.60 |
Objectively | 0–5 (knowledge of content) | 5 | 0.80 |