Influence of participation in a quality improvement collaborative on staff perceptions of organizational sustainability

Ford, James H.; Gilson, Aaron

doi:10.1186/s12913-020-06026-3

Table 3 Staff -Level Sustainability Perceptions: Linear Mixed Model Results for Model 2

From: Influence of participation in a quality improvement collaborative on staff perceptions of organizational sustainability

	Estimate	Std. Err.	df	t	Sign.	95% CI
Total Sustainability Score (Primary Outcome)
Intercept	82.22	1.56	984	52.63	p = .0001	79.15–85.28
Time_4,1	7.17	1.55	867	4.62	p = .0001	4.12–10.22
Time_4,2	3.00	1.53	877	1.960	p = .05	−.01–6.00
Time_4,3	0.12	1.51	890	0.08	p > .05	−2.85 – 3.08
Comb vs. learning	3.28	1.47	1842	2.228	p = .026	−6.173461
Comb vs. circles	2.15	1.53	1848	1.407	p > .05	−0.85 – 5.14
Comb vs. coaching	0.21	1.44	1850	−0.15	p > .05	−2.62 – 3.04
Job Function (clinical)	−3.50	1.07	1850	−3.27	p = .001	−5.59 – −1.40
Process Domain Score (Secondary Outcome)
Intercept	25.20	0.49	981	51.46	=.0001	24.23–26.16
Time_4,1	2.18	0.49	884	4.44	p = .0001	1.22–3.14
Time_4,2	0.92	0.48	902	1.89	p > .05	−0.03 – 1.87
Time_4,3	− 0.58	0.46	866	1.26	p > .05	−1.49 – 0.33
Comb vs. learning	0.80	0.46	1872	1.74	p > .05	−0.10 – 1.70
Comb vs. circles	0.62	0.47	1900	1.31	p > .05	−0.31 – 1.55
Comb vs. coaching	−0.28	0.45	1888	−0.62	p > .05	−1.16 – 0.61
Job Function (clinical)	−1.72	0.33	1891	−5.18	p = .0001	−2.37 – − 1.07
Staff Domain Score (Secondary Outcome)
Intercept	43.16	0.91	979	47.51	p = .0001	41.37–44.94
Time_4,1	3.35	0.90	881	3.71	p = .0001	1.58–5.12
Time_4,2	1.46	0.88	891	1.65	p > .05	−0.27 – 3.20
Time_4,3	0.56	0.89	889	0.63	p > .05	−1.18 – 2.30
Comb vs. learning	1.70	0.86	1892	1.97	p = .049	0.01–3.39
Comb vs. circles	0.87	0.89	1894	0.98	p > .05	−0.87 – 2.62
Comb vs. coaching	0.15	0.84	1896	0.17	p > .05	−1.51 – 1.80
Job Function (clinical)	−1.50	0.62	1894	−2.40	p = .017	−2.72 – − 0.27
Organization Domain Score (Secondary Outcome)
Intercept	13.52	0.31	1017	42.92	p = .0001	12.90–14.14
Time_4,1	1.32	0.31	903	4.22	p = .0001	0.70–1.93
Time_4,2	0.81	0.31	908	2.64	p = .008	0.21–1.42
Time_4,3	0.24	0.30	912	0.80	p > .05	−0.35 – 0.84
Comb vs. learning	0.69	0.30	1921	2.34	p = .019	0.11–1.27
Comb vs. circles	0.36	0.31	1932	1.17	p > .05	−0.24 – 0.96
Comb vs. coaching	−0.17	0.29	1932	−0.58	p > .05	−0.73 – 0.40
Job Function (clinical)	−0.31	0.21	1932	−1.47	p > .05	−0.73 – 0.11

Back to article page

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com

BMC Health Services Research

Contact us