Skip to main content
. 2023 Nov;69(11):784–791. doi: 10.46747/cfp.6911784

Table 3.

Factors associated with FPs being less likely to occupy a container role (ie, listening to patients’ complaints without developing an active treatment plan)

FACTOR UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS
OR (95% CI), P VALUE
MODEL 1* (BIC=138.35)
OR (95% CI), P VALUE
MODEL 2* (BIC=125.49)
OR (95% CI), P VALUE
Asking Socratic questions 4.21 (1.30-13.67), P=.02 3.28 (0.74-14.47), P=.12 3.09 (0.79-12.10), P=.11
Providing psychoeducation 3.60 (1.35-9.63), P=.01 1.89 (0.57-6.29), P=.30 2.10 (0.66-6.75), P=.21
Assigning homework 4.21 (1.30-13.67), P=.02 2.16 (0.44-10.76), P=.35 2.58 (0.56-11.81), P=.22
Participating in a supervised education group 2.25 (1.05-4.82), P=.04 1.03 (0.32-3.28), P=.96 1.00 (0.32-3.09), P=.99
Having patients experience positive effects 7.50 (1.91-29.50), P<.01 2.23 (0.12-40.73), P=.59 2.44 (0.12-48.02), P=.56
Participating in a refresher course 2.44 (1.13-5.27), P=.02 2.85 (0.84-9.66), P=.09 2.62 (0.83-8.23), P=.10
Having an office colleague who uses CBT 2.81 (1.06-7.50), P=.04 3.64 (0.79-16.72), P=.10 4.11 (0.91-18.47), P=.07
Assigning a daily activity log 2.03 (0.82-5.02), P=.13 0.87 (0.27-2.76), P=.81 NA
Using the anxiety curve 1.98 (0.77-5.10), P=.16 1.29 (0.40-4.24), P=.67 NA
Evaluation 2.05 (0.83-5.08), P=.12 1.62 (0.51-5.16), P=.41 NA
Setting an agenda 1.44 (0.55-3.81), P=.46 NA NA
Using problem lists 0.79 (0.20-3.18), P=.74 NA NA
Reviewing homework 1.53 (0.34-6.88), P=.58 NA NA
Using the ABC model 0.51 (0.10-2.52), P=.41 NA NA
Discussing the panic cycle 1.43 (0.58-3.52), P=.44 NA NA
Using a case formulation approach 1.18 (0.47-2.96), P=.73 NA NA
Providing summaries at the end of consultations 1.06 (0.36-3.13), P=.91 NA NA
Cooperating with local specialists 1.49 (0.60-3.71), P=.39 NA NA
Having fixed time for CBT 1.49 (0.68-3.29), P=.32 NA NA
Having economic incentives 1.63 (0.71-3.70), P=.25 NA NA

ABC—Activating event, Belief, Consequence32; BIC—Bayesian information criteria; CBT—cognitive behavioural therapy; NA—not applicable; OR—odds ratio.

*

Models 1 and 2 are based on variables with P≤.20 and P≤.05, respectively, from the univariate analysis. Model 2 was chosen for the analysis because of its smaller BIC estimate.