Skip to main content

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
 Time4,1 7.08 1.55 860 4.57 p = .0001 4.03–10.12
 Time4,2 2.88 1.52 865 1.89 p > .05 −.12–5.87
 Time4,3 −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
 Time4,1 2.16 0.49 889 4.40 p = .0001 1.19–3.12
 Time4,2 0.89 0.48 901 1.85 p > .05 −0.06 – 1.84
 Time4,3 −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
 Time4,1 3.29 0.90 886 3.64 p = .0001 1.51–5.06
 Time4,2 1.38 0.88 901 1.57 p > .05 −0.35 – 3.12
 Time4,3 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
 Time4,1 1.31 0.31 896 4.20 p = .0001 0.70–1.92
 Time4,2 0.79 0.30 902 2.60 p = .009 0.19–1.39
 Time4,3 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