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

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	73.21	3.54	1819	20.71	p = .0001	66.28–80.15
Time_4,1	7.08	1.55	860	4.57	p = .0001	4.03–10.12
Time_4,2	2.88	1.52	865	1.89	p > .05	−.12–5.87
Time_4,3	−0.04	1.50	879	0.02	p > .05	−2.99 – 2.92
Comb vs. learning	−0.23	1.86	1848	0.12	p > .05	−3.87– 3.41
Comb vs. circles	−4.79	2.76	1843	1.74	p > .05	−10.20 – 0.62
Comb vs. coaching	−6.74	2.50	1842	2.69	p = .007	−11.65 – 1.83
Job Function (clinical)	−3.44	1.07	1849	−3.22	p = .001	−5.54 – −1.34
Total Participation Hours	0.18	0.06	1830	3.09	p = .002	0.07–0.29
Non-Profit vs. For-Profit	−2.24	1.69	1848	−1.33	p > .05	− 5.55 – 1.07
System Program vs. Free-Standing Program	−2.23	1.09	1849	−2.06	p = 0.40	−4.36 – −0.10
Non-Accredited vs. Accredited	1.32	1.16	1849	1.14	p > .05	− 0.96 – 3.61
Rural vs. Urban	2.09	1.31	1847	1.59	p > .05	−0.49 – 4.67
Process Domain Score (Secondary Outcome)
Intercept	23.64	1.10	1856	21.40	p = .0001	21.47–25.80
Time_4,1	2.16	0.49	889	4.40	p = .0001	1.19–3.12
Time_4,2	0.89	0.48	901	1.85	p > .05	−0.06 – 1.84
Time_4,3	−0.63	0.46	868	−1.36	p > .05	−1.53 – 0.28
Comb vs. learning	0.06	0.58	1894	−0.10	p > .05	−1.19 – 1.07
Comb vs. circles	−0.78	0.86	1890	−0.90	p > .05	−2.47 – 0.91
Comb vs. coaching	−1.76	0.78	1883	−2.25	p = .025	−3.29 – 0.22
Job Function (clinical)	−1.66	0.33	1904	−4.97	p = .0001	−2.31 – −1.00
Total Participation Hours	0.04	0.02	1868	2.06	p = .039	0.002–0.07
Non-Profit vs. For-Profit	−1.11	0.53	1898	−2.11	p = .035	−2.14 – −0.08
System Program vs. Free-Standing Program	−0.82	0.34	1906	−2.42	p = 0.016	−1.48 – −0.15
Non-Accredited vs. Accredited	0.10	0.36	1901	0.28	p > .05	−0.61 – 0.81
Rural vs. Urban	0.50	0.41	1896	1.22	p > .05	−0.30 – 1.31
Staff Domain Score (Secondary Outcome)
Intercept	37.19	2.08	1872	17.89	p = .0001	33.11–41.26
Time_4,1	3.29	0.90	886	3.64	p = .0001	1.51–5.06
Time_4,2	1.38	0.88	901	1.57	p > .05	−0.35 – 3.12
Time_4,3	0.47	0.89	902	0.54	p > .05	−1.27 – 2.21
Comb vs. learning	−0.40	1.09	1901	−0.37	p > .05	−2.54 – 1.74.
Comb vs. circles	−3.33	1.62	1894	−2.06	p = .040	−6.51 – −0.15
Comb vs. coaching	−3.96	1.47	1894	−2.69	p = .007	−6.84 – −1.07
Job Function (clinical)	−1.52	0.63	1902	−2.41	p = .016	−2.75 – −0.28
Total Participation Hours	0.11	0.03	1882	3.10	p = .002	0.04–0.17
Non-Profit vs. For-Profit	−0.58	0.99	1900	−0.59	p > .05	−2.53 – 1.36
System Program vs. Free-Standing Program	−0.73	0.64	1902	1.14	p > .05	−1.98 – 0.52
Non-Accredited vs. Accredited	1.23	0.68	1901	1.81	p > .05	−0.10 – 2.56
Rural vs. Urban	1.14	0.77	1901	1.48	p > .05	−0.38 – 2.65
Organization Domain Score (Secondary Outcome)
Intercept	12.32	0.71	1894	17.37	p = .0001	10.93–13.71
Time_4,1	1.31	0.31	896	4.20	p = .0001	0.70–1.92
Time_4,2	0.79	0.30	902	2.60	p = .009	0.19–1.39
Time_4,3	0.21	0.30	902	0.69	p > .05	−0.38 – 0.80
Comb vs. learning	0.18	0.37	1930	0.49	p > .05	−0.55 – 0.91
Comb vs. circles	−0.64	0.55	1925	−1.16	p > .05	−1.73 – 0.44
Comb vs. coaching	−1.24	0.50	1924	−2.46	p = .014	−2.22 – −0.25
Job Function (clinical)	−0.32	0.21	1931	−1.49	p > .05	−0.74 – 0.10
Total Participation Hours	0.03	0.01	1912	2.22	p = .027	0.003–0.05
Non-Profit vs. For-Profit	−0.22	.034	1927	−0.66	p > .05	−0.89 – 0.44
System Program vs. Free-Standing Program	−0.66	0.22	1931	−3.03	p = .003	−1.08 – −0.23
Non-Accredited vs. Accredited	0.14	0.23	1929	0.58	p > .05	−0.32 – 0.59
Rural vs. Urban	0.60	0.26	1928	2.28	p = .023	0.08–1.12

Back to article page

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com

BMC Health Services Research

Contact us