Table 5.
NoMAD responses by Normalization Process Theory domains and practice location.
| Areas | Gothenburg (n = 66) | Regional (n = 59) | p value* | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (missing) | Median (Q1;Q3) | Mean | n (missing) | Median (Q1;Q3) | Mean | ||
| Coherence | |||||||
| I can see how PAP differs from usual ways of working | 56 (10) | 4 (3;4) | 3.88 | 56 (3) | 4 (3;4) | 3.73 | 0.407 |
| Staff in this organisation have a shared understanding of the purpose of PAP | 57 (9) | 4 (3;4) | 3.79 | 57 (2) | 3 (3;4) | 3.40 | 0 . 005 |
| I understand how PAP affects the nature of my own/my staff's work | 56 (10) | 4 (3;4) | 3.64 | 52 (7) | 3 (3;4) | 3.29 | 0 . 017 |
| I can see the potential value of PAP for my work | 55 (11) | 4 (4;4) | 3.98 | 52 (7) | 4 (3;4) | 3.87 | 0.544 |
| Cognitive participation | |||||||
| There are key people who drive PAP forward and get others involved | 52 (14) | 4 (3;4) | 3.63 | 56 (3) | 3 (3;4) | 3.09 | 0 . 003 |
| I’m open to working with colleagues/staff in new ways to use PAP | 54 (12) | 4 (4;5) | 4.33 | 55 (4) | 4 (4;5) | 4.44 | 0.325 |
| I will continue to support PAP | 57 (9) | 4 (4;5) | 4.30 | 55 (4) | 4 (4;5) | 4.24 | 0.675 |
| Collective action | |||||||
| I can easily integrate/take decisions about PAP into my existing work | 55 (11) | 4 (3;4) | 3.73 | 54 (5) | 4 (3;4) | 3.63 | 0.488 |
| PAP disrupts working relationshipsa | 56 (10) | 2 (1;2) | 1.71 | 54 (5) | 2 (1;2) | 1.81 | 0.680 |
| I have confidence in my colleagues/staff's ability to use PAP | 58 (8) | 4 (4;5) | 4.12 | 56 (3) | 4 (3;5) | 3.95 | 0.296 |
| Work is assigned to those with skills appropriate to PAP | 54 (12) | 4 (3;4) | 3.74 | 53 (6) | 3 (3;4) | 3.43 | 0 . 032 |
| Sufficient training is provided to enable staff/managers to implement PAP | 49 (17) | 3 (3;4) | 3.24 | 51 (8) | 2 (2;3) | 2.55 | <0 . 001 |
| Sufficient resources are available to support PAP | 55 (11) | 3 (3;4) | 3.13 | 53 (6) | 3 (2;3) | 2.74 | 0 . 029 |
| Management/I as a manager adequately supports PAP | 41 (25) | 4 (3;4) | 3.73 | 49 (10) | 3 (3;4) | 3.45 | 0.059 |
| Reflexive monitoring | |||||||
| I am aware of reports about the effects of PAP | 56 (10) | 3 (2;4) | 3.11 | 57 (2) | 3 (2;4) | 3.05 | 0.995 |
| The staff agree that PAP is worthwhile | 56 (10) | 4 (3;4) | 3.73 | 57 (2) | 4 (3;4) | 3.58 | 0.406 |
| I value the effects that PAP has had on my work | 53 (13) | 4 (3;4) | 3.68 | 46 (13) | 3 (3;4) | 3.30 | 0 . 011 |
| Feedback about PAP can be used to improve it in the future | 56 (10) | 4 (4;5) | 4.05 | 53 (6) | 4 (4;4) | 4.00 | 0.761 |
| I/the staff can modify how I/they work with PAP | 54 (12) | 4 (3;4) | 3.63 | 50 (9) | 4 (3;4) | 3.64 | 0.864 |
a
Item reverse scored. PAP Physical activity on prescription. In the survey most of the items were formulated as PAP for children with obesity.
*p-values are derived from Mann-Whitney U tests of differences between practice locations.