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