Table 5 Cluster analysis of the observed correlates and effects of different levels of integration of screening programmes into breast centres according to clinical leads (n = 62)
Type of item | Mean (range) | SD | Equality-of-means test | Cluster(s) with a significantly different mean | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | P value | Clustera | Cluster mean | Mean of the other clusters | P value | ||||
Breast centre characteristics | |||||||||
New breast cancer cases treated in the last year | Number | 418.3 (345.1–656.5) | 339.1 | 1.11 | 0.37 | Medium | 656.5 | 374.8 | 0.021 |
Dedicated breast radiologists | Number | 5.5 (4.5–7.2) | 3.2 | 1.19 | 0.33 | High | 7.2 | 5.1 | 0.039 |
Dedicated radiographers | Number | 7.13 (5.15–9.25) | 4.67 | 2.07 | 0.082 | High | 9.2 | 6.6 | 0.079 |
Mammogram reading volume in the last year | Number | 24,595 (16,592–35,330) | 21,076 | 1.31 | 0.27 | High | 35,330 | 21,268 | 0.031 |
Availability of a data manager | No/yes | 0.78 (0.50–1.00) | 0.42 | 1.98 | 0.096 | Medium | 1.00 | 0.72 | 0.088 |
Availability of a clinical database for quality assurance and research | No/yes | 0.89 (0.50–1.00) | 0.32 | 2.95 | 0.019 | Medium–low | 0.50 | 0.92 | 0.002 |
Performance expectancy | |||||||||
The integration makes me more confident of the clinical quality of patient care | Score 1–100 | 93.4 (86.8–99.2) | 14.20 | 1.49 | 0.21 | Low | 87.8 | 95.9 | 0.038 |
The integration makes me more confident of patient convenience (service timeliness, etc.) | Score 1–100 | 95.7 (89.0–100.0) | 12.55 | 1.41 | 0.24 | Low | 90.9 | 97.8 | 0.046 |
The integration eases my job | Score 1–100 | 83.0 (43.8–96.2) | 25.58 | 4.37 | 0.002 | None | 43.8 | 86.4 | 0.000 |
High | 96.2 | 79.8 | 0.046 | ||||||
The integration offers better opportunities for my professional growth | Score 1–100 | 73.7 (47.4–89.7) | 29.40 | 2.22 | 0.065 | None | 47.4 | 76.0 | 0.036 |
High | 89.7 | 69.9 | 0.035 | ||||||
Effort expectancy | |||||||||
It is easy to acquire the management skills needed for the integration | Score 1–100 | 55.3 (45.1–71.0) | 27.56 | 1.78 | 0.13 | Low | 45.1 | 59.8 | 0.051 |
High | 71.0 | 51.5 | 0.027 | ||||||
Managing the integration does not cost me extra working time | Score 1–100 | 42.7 (32.6–62.6) | 30.42 | 1.02 | 0.41 | NC | |||
Social influence | |||||||||
Do your colleagues think that the integration is important? | Score 1–100 | 85.7 (73.0–94.2) | 20.57 | 1.09 | 0.37 | NC | |||
Does local health authority think that the integration is important? | Score 1–100 | 76.2 (63.7–92.0) | 27.93 | 1.34 | 0.26 | Low | 63.7 | 81.7 | 0.018 |
Facilitating conditions | |||||||||
Has local health authority made available to you the resources needed for the integration? | Score 1–100 | 42.5 (23.2–62.2) | 34.46 | 2.59 | 0.036 | Low | 23.2 | 51.0 | 0.003 |
Has local health authority enabled you to acquire the management skills needed? | Score 1–100 | 51.5 (36.7–67.3) | 34.43 | 1.49 | 0.21 | Low | 36.7 | 58.0 | 0.023 |
High | 67.3 | 47.7 | 0.077 | ||||||
Has your local health authority developed an official protocol for the management of breast cancer? | Score 1–100 | 71.3 (48.4–90.1) | 33.48 | 2.84 | 0.023 | Low | 58.3 | 77.1 | 0.040 |
High | 90.1 | 66.8 | 0.029 | ||||||
Propensity to use | |||||||||
Are you inclined to handling the integration personally? | Score 1–100 | 92.6 (84.9 -100.0) | 16.99 | 2.00 | 0.093 | Low | 85.5 | 95.8 | 0.027 |
Are you inclined to keep on handle the integration with conviction? | Score 1–100 | 92.6 (84.8–97.7) | 16.52 | 1.17 | 0.33 | NC | |||
Satisfaction and motivation | |||||||||
The integration makes my working environment more stimulating | Score 1–100 | 85.1 (61.6–92.4) | 20.03 | 2.59 | 0.036 | None | 61.6 | 87.2 | 0.005 |
The integration makes my working environment more satisfactory | Score 1–100 | 84.1 (66.2–93.8) | 20.09 | 2.28 | 0.059 | None | 66.2 | 85.7 | 0.036 |
High | 93.8 | 81.8 | 0.065 | ||||||