Can a multicomponent multidisciplinary implementation package change physicians’ and nurses’ perceptions and practices regarding thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke? An exploratory analysis of a cluster-randomized trial

Table 4 Effect of intervention on domain 2 score = perceptions about the evidence base for intravenous thrombolysis and its implementation

	Intervention group		Control group		Intervention vs. control group^a,b; p value
	Pre-intervention (Mean ± SD)	Post-intervention (Mean ± SD)	Pre-intervention (Mean ± SD)	Post-intervention (Mean ± SD)
Overall
	3.18 ± 0.47	3.29 ± 0.41	3.24 ± 0.43	3.14 ± 0.49	0.21 (0.06; 0.36)*; 0.007
Location
Metropolitan	3.20 ± 0.49	3.33 ± 0.38	3.25 ± 0.43	3.12 ± 0.51	0.25 (0.04; 0.46)*; 0.021
Non-metropolitan	3.16 ± 0.46	3.22 ± 0.44	3.23 ± 0.43	3.19 ± 0.46	0.09 (− 0.20; 0.38); 0.523
Job role
Physician	3.18 ± 0.48	3.10 ± 0.50	3.17 ± 0.40	2.90 ± 0.57	0.19 (− 0.10; 0.48); 0.206
Nurse	3.19 ± 0.47	3.36 ± 0.34	3.28 ± 0.44	3.27 ± 0.39	0.18 (0.01; 0.36)*; 0.039

*p value < 0.05 considered as significant
**p value < 0.01 considered as significant
***p value < 0.001 considered as significant
^aChange from pre-intervention to post-intervention survey
^bLinear mixed model controlled for category based on baseline thrombolysis rate

ISSN: 1748-5908