Table 4.
Contingency tables and logistic regression results for the stakeholder group association with response rates
|
Rounds and stakeholder groups |
Response |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | b | SE ( b) | Odds ratio | 95% CI | p-value a | |
| Round 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<0.001 |
| Policy developers/implementers |
33 |
29 |
0.00 |
- |
1.00 |
- |
- |
| Horse industry representatives |
25 |
99 |
-1.51 |
0.34 |
0.22 |
0.11, 0.43 |
- |
| Researchers |
26 |
8 |
1.05 |
0.48 |
2.86 |
1.16, 7.65 |
- |
| Horse health care providers |
9 |
11 |
-0.33 |
0.52 |
0.72 |
0.26, 1.98 |
- |
| Wildlife health managers |
8 |
7 |
0.0043 |
0.58 |
1.00 |
0.32, 3.19 |
- |
| Round 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.034 |
| Policy developers/implementers |
27 |
6 |
0.00 |
- |
1.00 |
- |
- |
| Horse industry representatives |
11 |
14 |
-1.75 |
0.61 |
0.18 |
0.050, 0.55 |
- |
| Researchers |
19 |
7 |
-0.51 |
0.63 |
0.60 |
0.17, 2.09 |
- |
| Horse health care providers |
5 |
4 |
-1.28 |
0.81 |
0.28 |
0.055, 1.40 |
- |
| Wildlife health managers |
6 |
2 |
-0.41 |
0.93 |
0.67 |
0.12, 5.30 |
- |
| Overall |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<0.001 |
| Policy developers/implementers |
27 |
35 |
0.00 |
- |
1.00 |
- |
|
| Horse industry representatives |
11 |
113 |
-2.07 |
0.41 |
0.13 |
0.055, 0.27 |
|
| Researchers |
19 |
15 |
0.50 |
0.43 |
1.64 |
0.71, 3.86 |
|
| Horse health care providers |
5 |
15 |
-0.84 |
0.58 |
0.43 |
0.13, 1.27 |
|
| Wildlife health managers | 6 | 9 | -0.15 | 0.59 | 0.86 | 0.26, 2.70 | |
ap-values based on likelihood ratio Chi-square test of significance.