Background
Theoretical framework
Methods
Study context
The intervention
Data collection
Analysis
Results
The characteristics of central actors
Unit A | Unit B | Unit C | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Central (n = 28, 9%) | Others (n = 288) | Central (n = 31, 6%) | Others (n = 503) | Central (n = 9, 5%) | Others (n = 176) | ||
Female (%) | 23 (82%) | 259 (90%) | 26 (84%) | 456 (91%) | 8 (89%) | 142 (81%) | |
Years of public health experience; mean (SD) | 13 (9)* | 10 (8) | 17 (7) | 14 (9) | 15 (8) | 12 (9) | |
Educational degree | Diploma | 0 | 41 (14%) | 0 | 67 (13%) | 0 | 57 (32%) |
Baccalaureate | 11 (39%) | 173 (60%) | 6 (19%) | 259 (52%) | 3 (33%) | 104 (59%) | |
Masters | 16 (57%) | 68 (24%) | 21 (68%) | 151 (30%) | 6 (66%) | 14 (8%) | |
Doctorate | 1 (4%) | 5 (1.7%) | 4 (13%) | 16 (3%) | 0 | 1 (0.5%) | |
Managerial | Highly engaged | 4 (14%) | 10 (3%) | 0 | 1 | 3 (33%) | 3 (2%) |
Not engaged | 2 (7%) | 12 (4%) | 11 (35%) | 48 (10%) | 0 | 16 (9%) | |
EIDM professional | Highly engaged | 8 (29%) | 5 (2%) | 3 (10%) | 6 (1%) | - | - |
Not engaged | 2 (7%) | 9 (3%) | 11 (35%) | 77 (15%) | - | - | |
Other | Highly engaged | 5 (18%) | 21 (7%) | 0 | 3 (0.5%) | 2 (22%) | 10 (6%) |
Not engaged | 7 (25%) | 230 (80%) | 6 (19%) | 463 (92%) | 4 (44%) | 144 (82%) | |
Baseline EBP implementation score mean (SE) | 14.5 (7.4)** | 9.5 (8.5) | 13.5 (6.8)* | 9.4 (10) | 9.8 (7.3) | 7.5 (7) | |
Degree in friendship network | 3.6 (2.1)*** | 1.8 (1.4) | 3 (1.7)** | 2 (1.4) | 3 (0.8)** | 1.9 (1.1) |
Change in EBP implementation scores over time
Regression coefficients | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Respondents | Seeking information from a peer who is: | |||
Baseline | ||||
Not highly engaged | Not highly engaged | 9.1(0.7) | 9.1(0.7) | 10.5(0.5) |
Highly engaged, but not central | −3.2(1.4)* | |||
Highly engaged central | −0.7(1.1) | |||
Highly engaged, but not central | Not highly engaged | 1.6(1.1) | −0.3(1.4) | 1.5(2.3) |
Highly engaged, but not central | −4.3(3.0) | |||
Highly engaged central | −2.1(1.9) | |||
Highly engaged central | Not highly engaged | 5.5(1.9)** | 5.5(5.2) | |
Highly engaged, but not central | 2.0(4.8) | |||
Highly engaged central | 4.3(2.1)* | |||
Change from baseline | ||||
Not highly engaged | Not highly engaged | 0.07(0.4) | 0.07(0.4) | −0.8(0.6) |
Highly engaged, but not central | −0.3(1.3) | |||
Highly engaged central | 2.5(1.1)* | |||
Highly engaged, but not central | Not highly engaged | 2.4(1.0)* | 1.4(1.3) | −0.5(2.3) |
Highly engaged, but not central | −1.8(3.2) | |||
Highly engaged central | 2.9(1.7) | |||
Highly engaged central | Not highly engaged | 4.2(1.8)** | −0.3(4.7) | |
Highly engaged, but not central | 4.8(7.5) | |||
Highly engaged central | 4.9(1.9)** | |||
Random effects variance | ||||
Health Units | 1.03(1.1) | 1.0(1.0) | ~0 | |
Individuals | 52.5(4.3) | 51.7(4.3) | 47(4.9) | |
Residual | 36.1(2.7) | 36.0(2.7) | 33(2.9) |
Regression coefficients | ||
---|---|---|
Respondents | Friends with someone who is: | |
Baseline | ||
Not highly engaged | Not highly engaged | 9.9(1.2) |
Highly engaged, but not central | −3.5(2.1) | |
Highly engaged central | −0.8(1.7) | |
Highly engaged, but not central | Not highly engaged | 0.1(3.4) |
Highly engaged, but not central | −3.3(2.4) | |
Highly engaged central | −1.8(2.7) | |
Highly engaged central | Not highly engaged | 6.1(3.2) |
Highly engaged, but not central | 0.4(4.3) | |
Highly engaged central | 5.6(2.4)* | |
Change from baseline | ||
Not highly engaged | Not highly engaged | −0.7(1.1) |
Highly engaged, but not central | 2.3(1.8) | |
Highly engaged central | 3.3(1.4)* | |
Highly engaged, but not central | Not highly engaged | −2.0(3.2) |
Highly engaged, but not central | 2.6(2.3) | |
Highly engaged central | 5.7(2.3)* | |
Highly engaged central | Not highly engaged | 8.1(3.2)* |
Highly engaged, but not central | 3.0(3.8) | |
Highly engaged central | 4.8(2.0)* | |
Random effects variance | ||
Health Units | 0.6(1.5) | |
Individuals | 29.2(5.4) | |
Residual | 21.8(3.0) |