Table 3.
The relationship between several factors and the assessed cultural competence.
| Knowledge |
Culturally competent consultation attitudes |
Culturally competent skills |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GP trainees | GP trainers | GP trainees | GP trainers | GP trainees | GP trainers | |
| Beta (95%CI) | Beta (95%CI) | Beta (95%CI) | Beta (95%CI) | Beta (95%CI) | Beta (95%CI) | |
| Sex | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 0 Female | ||||||
| 1 Male | ||||||
| GP training institute | – | – | – | |||
| 0 VUmc | – | – | ||||
| 1 AMC | 0.8 (-0.1 − 1.6)* | −0.3 (-0.6 − 0.0)* | ||||
| Year of residency | – | – | – | |||
| 0 First year of residency | – | – | ||||
| 1 Last year of residency | 1.5 (0.6 − 2.4)* | 0.3 (-0.0– 0.6)* | ||||
| Years of experience as a junior doctor before the start of GP traininga | – | N.A. | – | N.A. | – | N.A. |
| Years of experience as a GP trainer | N.A. | – | N.A. | - | N.A. | |
| 0 Quartile1 | – | |||||
| 1 Quartile2 | 0.2 (-0.1 − 0.6) | |||||
| 2 Quartile3 | 0.4 (0.0 − 0.7)* | |||||
| 3 Quartile4 | −0.0 (-0.3 − 0.3) | |||||
| Years of experience as a GP | N.A. | – | N.A. | – | N.A. | – |
| 0 Quartile1 | ||||||
| 1 Quartile2 | ||||||
| 2 Quartile3 | ||||||
| 3 Quartile4 | ||||||
| Percentage of migrant patients in general practice | – | – | – | – | ||
| 0 ≤ 10% | – | – | ||||
| 1 > 10% | 1.6 (0.9 − 2.3)* | 0.3 (0.1 − 0.4)* | ||||
| Ethnicity of participants | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 0 European origin | ||||||
| 1 Origin outside Europe | 1.1 (-0.1–2.2)* | 0.4 (0.0–0.8)* | ||||
| Affinity with care of migrant patientsb | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 0 No affinity | ||||||
| 1 Neutral | ||||||
| 2 Affinity | ||||||
| Self-perceived CC1 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 0 Score 1-5 | – | |||||
| 1 Score ≥6 | 0.2 (0.0 − 0.4)* | |||||
0= the reference group.
*
Significance at p ≤ 0.10.
a
Continuous variable.
b
The categorical variable perceived barriers in care of migrants was excluded from the analysis due to collinearity with affinity with care for migrants in both groups.