Skip to main content

Table 3 Mean score differences and standard deviations in perceived usability between users vs non-users of the guidelinea

From: Implementation of a guideline for local health policy making by regional health services: exploring determinants of use by a web survey

Behavioral beliefs (range 1–5) Total (n = 73) Users (n = 35) Non-users (n = 38) Significance of difference
  (mean (sd)) (mean (sd)) (mean (sd)) p
The guideline offers me a clear guidance for the development of local health (policy) 4.10 (0.89) 4.37 (0.77) 3.84 (0.92) 0.007
The guideline contains clear instructions for RHS application 3.67 (0.85) 3.91 (0.82) 3.45 (0.83) 0.010
I expect that collaboration with other sectoral policies actually leads to a more effective approach to the guidelines’ five health topics 4.41 (0.88) 4.66 (0.64) 4.18 (1.01) 0.025
I think the guidelines’ concepts are scientifically well-founded 3.86 (0.84) 4.17 (0.66) 3.58 (0.89) 0.002
I think the guideline offers a sufficient number of examples to work on my own 3.71 (0.86) 3.91 (0.82) 3.53 (0.86) 0.023
I think the stepwise approach of the policy cycle is quite useful in my RHS practice 4.00 (0.76) 4.26 (0.70) 3.76 (0.75) 0.005
The guideline provides sufficient flexibility for use in specific local contexts of RHS 4.07 (0.84) 4.31 (0.72) 3.84 (0.89) 0.012
I think RHS perspectives on developing local health are compatible with the guidelines’ perspectives 3.81 (0.76) 4.00 (0.64) 3.63 (0.82) 0.038
The guideline fits in well with current national policies, regulations and laws 4.14 (0.79) 4.34 (0.80) 3.95 (0.73) 0.018
  1. aItems which showed no significant difference, referred to: ease of finding themes in the guideline, alignment with other policy instruments, fit with RHSs’ own policy instruments, acceptability of time required for preparing the application of the guideline, and the applicability of specific guideline components within their RHS organization