Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of part 1 of the survey (focusing on determinants)

From: Process evaluation of five tailored programs to improve the implementation of evidence-based recommendations for chronic conditions in primary care

 

Determinants intended to be modified by the program

Relevance*

Modification**

Total

IG

CG

IG

% (n)

% (n)

% (n)

% (n)

GE

1 Knowledge of HCP

71.4 (15)

80.0 (8)

63.6 (7)

100.0 (10)

2 Routine

52.3 (11)

30.0 (3)

72.7 (8)

90.0 (9)

3 Availability of medication lists

61.9 (13)

40.0 (4)

81.8 (9)

80.0 (8)

4 Identification of the target group

23.8 (5)

40.0 (4)

9.0 (1)

90.0 (8)

5 Feasibility of checklists

90.5 (19)

90.0 (9)

90.9 (10)

80.0 (8)

6 Patients’ ability for self-management

90.5 (19)

90.0 (9)

90.9 (10)

80.0 (8)

7 Language barrier

76.2 (16)

70.0 (7)

81.8 (9)

70.0 (7)

8 Patients’ knowledge

57.1 (12)

60.0 (6)

54.5 (6)

90.0 (9)

9 Standardization of medication lists

61.9 (13)

60.0 (6)

63.6 (7)

70.0 (7)

Mean of all items GE

65.1 (13.7)

62.2 (6.2)

67.6 (7.4)

83.3 (8.2)

NL

1 Apply motivational interviewing

93.3 (28)

100.0 (17)

84.6 (11)

100.0 (17)

2 Giving good advice to patients

96.7 (29)

100.0 (17)

92.3 (12)

100.0 (17)

3 More attention for the motivation of the patient

96.7 (29)

100.0 (17)

92.3 (12)

100.0 (17)

4 PN gives lifestyle advice in an acceptable and feasible way

93.3 (28)

94.1 (16)

92.3 (12)

100.0 (17)

5 PN meets patients’ information needs

93.3 (28)

94.1 (16)

92.3 (12)

94.1 (16)

6 PN drafts feasible targets for patients

96.7 (29)

100.0 (17)

92.3 (12)

100.0 (17)

7 E-health support for self-management

83.3 (25)

94.1 (16)

69.2 (9)

88.2 (15)

Mean of all items NL

93.3 (28)

97.5 (16.6)

87.9 (11.4)

97.5 (16.6)

PL

1 Availability of educational materials for recommendation 1

100.0 (13)

100.0 (7)

100.0 (6)

28.6 (2)

2 Availability of training for GPs

69.2 (9)

57.1 (4)

83.3 (5)

42.9 (3)

3 Labeling of medication records

100.0 (13)

100.0 (7)

100.0 (6)

100.0 (7)

4 Accessibility of mMRC scale

100.0 (13)

100.0 (7)

100.0 (6)

100.0 (7)

5 Accessibility of checklists for recommendation 2

92.3 (12)

85.7 (6)

100.0 (6)

100.0 (7)

6 Availability of the recommendations

100.0 (13)

100.0 (7)

100.0 (6)

100.0 (7)

7 Availability of training for personnel on dyspnea assessment

92.3 (12)

85.7 (6)

100.0 (6)

71.4 (5)

8 Availability of educational materials for recommendation 3

100.0 (13)

100.0 (7)

100.0 (6)

100.0 (7)

9 Availability of treatment plans

92.3 (12)

85.7 (6)

100.0 (6)

85.7 (6)

10 Accessibility of checklist for recommendation 3

92.3 (12)

85.7 (6)

100.0 (6)

85.7 (6)

11 Availability of peak flow meters

92.3 (12)

85.7 (6)

100.0 (6)

85.7 (6)

12 Availability of demonstration inhalers

100.0 (13)

100.0 (7)

100.0 (6)

100.0 (7)

13 Availability of educational materials on use of inhaler devices

100.0 (13)

100.0 (7)

100.0 (6)

100.0 (7)

14 Training of GPs on inhaler devices

100.0 (13)

100.0 (7)

100.0 (6)

85.7 (6)

15 Presence of additional staff (educator)

84.6 (11)

71.4 (5)

100.0 (6)

71.4 (5)

Mean of all items PL

94.4 (12.3)

90.5 (6.3)

98.9 (5.9)

83.3 (5.9)

UK

1 Skills of HCP to raise the issue of weight with patients

45.9 (28)

69.2 (9)

39.6 (19)

100.0 (13)

2 Skills of HCP to measure waist circumference

50.8 (31)

53.8 (7)

50.0 (24)

92.3 (12)

3 Skills of HCP to assess patients’ willingness to change

47.5 (29)

61.5 (8)

43.8 (21)

84.6 (11)

4 Availability of resources to inform and motivate patients

67.2 (41)

84.6 (11)

62.5 (30)

100.0 (13)

5 Availability of prescriptive weight loss information

83.6 (51)

92.3 (12)

81.3 (39)

100.0 (13)

6 Work with HCP whom manage obese and overweight patients to improve their knowledge on diets

66.7 (32)

76.9 (10)

45.8 (22)

92.3 (12)

7 Availability of information about referral pathways

59.0 (36)

76.9 (10)

54.2 (26)

92.3 (12)

Mean of all items UK

60.1 (35.4)

73.6 (9.6)

53.9 (25.9)

94.5 (12.3)

  1. IG intervention group, CG control group, GE Germany, NL The Netherlands, PL Poland, UK United Kingdom
  2. *Refers to item 1 of the framework depicted in Table 1
  3. **Refers to item 2 of the framework depicted in Table 1. Numbers show the proportion of respondents who answered the respective questionnaire item with “agree” or “partly agree”