Skip to main content

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)

From: Integrating mammography screening programmes into specialist breast centres in Italy: insights from a national survey of Senonetwork breast centres

  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
  1. NC No clusters (with a significantly different mean)
  2. aNone: scarcely integrated, low: poorly integrated, medium–low: mildly integrated, medium: moderately integrated, high: fully integrated. Only clusters showing significantly different mean values compared to the others were eligible for this analysis. This explains the absence of the medium–high level cluster. See Table 4 for details of the type of integration corresponding to each level