Table 2.
Satisfaction, acceptability, appropriateness.
| Comparison sites | Intervention sites | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre (N = 480) | Post (N = 478) | Pre (N = 480) | Post (N = 481) | |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |
| Client satisfaction | ||||
| Quality of the servicea | 3.04 (0.60) | 3.26 (0.62) | 3.14 (0.62) | 3.26 (0.59) |
| Received the kind of service the client wantedb | 3.61 (0.68) | 3.69 (0.52) | 3.48 (0.62) | 3.69 (0.54) |
| The extent to which this facility met your needsc | 3.53 (0.70) | 3.58 (0.55) | 3.36 (0.64) | 3.54 (0.56) |
| Would recommend this facility to a friendb | 3.84 (0.45) | 3.89 (0.34) | 3.70 (0.55) | 3.91 (0.28) |
| Satisfied with the amount of help receivedd | 3.50 (0.73) | 3.51 (0.68) | 3.29 (0.70) | 3.50 (0.64) |
| Would come back to the facilityb | 3.85 (0.43) | 3.89 (0.33) | 3.72 (0.52) | 3.92 (0.28) |
| Overall (out of 24 points) | 21.36 (2.83) | 21.81 (2.30) | 20.70 (2.74) | 21.82 (2.06) |
| HCW perceptions of appropriateness and acceptability of implementation strategy bundle | Post (N = 39) | |||
| Mean (SD) | ||||
| Appropriateness (IAM)e | ||||
| Fitting | – | – | – | 4.55 (0.64) |
| Suitable | – | – | – | 4.60 (0.55) |
| Applicable | – | – | – | 4.60 (0.55) |
| A good match | – | – | – | 4.55 (0.55) |
| Acceptability (AIM)f | ||||
| Meets approval | – | – | – | 4.55 (0.64) |
| Appealing | – | – | – | 4.56 (0.55) |
| I like it | – | – | – | 4.50 (0.60) |
| I welcome it | – | – | – | 4.58 (0.55) |
a
Likert scale options: poor to excellent: 1–4.
b
Likert scale options: no, definitely not to yes, definitely: 1–4.
c
Likert scale options: none of my needs have been met to almost all of my needs have been met: 1–4.
d
Likert scale options: not satisfied to very satisfied: 1–4.
e
Average on 4-item Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) scale; Likert scale (disagree to agree: 1–5).
f
Average on 4-item Acceptability of Intervention Measures (AIM) scale; Likert scale (disagree to agree: 1–5).