Skip to main content
. 2016 Feb 1;25(1):24–34.

Table 5.

Chi-square and p-values associated with the themes and levels of importance

Region Themes from rural/remote primary care physicians’ (PCPs) concerning child/adolescent mental health care service order in level of importance with chi-square and p-values1,2
ACROSS ALL REGIONS
(n=358)		 LEVEL ONE:

  • Resources (143) vs. psychiatrist access (139), Χ2 = 0.05, p = 0.81.

  • Psychiatrist Access (139) vs. process issues (107), Χ2 = 4.16, p = 0.04.


LEVEL TWO:

  • Process Issues (107) vs. refer to other professionals (90), Χ2 = 1.47, p = 0.23.

  • Refer to other professionals (90) vs. professional development (53), Χ2 = 9.57, p = 0.00.


LEVEL THREE:

  • Professional development (53) vs. workload (13), Χ2 = 24.24, p = 0.00.


LEVEL IV:

  • Workload (13).
WESTERN
(n=88)		 LEVEL ONE:

  • Psychiatrist access (32) vs. process issues (30), Χ2 = 0.07, p = 0.80.

  • Process issues (30) vs. resources (23), Χ2 = 0.93, p = 0.34.

  • Resources (23) vs. refer to other professionals (18), Χ2 = 0.62, p = .44.

  • Psychiatrist access (32) vs. refer to other professionals (18), Χ2 = 3.90, p = 0.05.

  • Process issues (30) vs. professional development (14), Χ2 = 5.82, p = 0.02.


LEVEL TWO:

  • Refer to other professionals (18) vs. professional development (14), Χ2= 0.50, p = 0.48.


LEVEL THREE:

  • Workload (2).
CENTRAL
(n=60)		 LEVEL ONE:

  • Resources (25) vs. psychiatrist access (22), Χ2= 0.19, p = 0.66.

  • Psychiatrist access (22) vs. process issues (14), Χ2 = 1.78, p = 0.18.

  • Refer to other professionals (13).


LEVEL TWO:

  • Professional development (4).

  • Workload (1).
ONTARIO
(n-124)		 LEVEL ONE:

  • Resources (55) vs. refer to other professionals (36), Χ2 = 3.97, p = 0.05.


LEVEL TWO:

  • Psychiatrist access (51) vs. refer to other professionals (36), Χ2 = 2.59, p = 0.11.

  • Psychiatric access (51) vs. process issues (38), Χ2 = 1.90, p = 0.17.

  • Process issues (38) vs. professional development (23), Χ2 = 3.69, p = 0.05.


LEVEL THREE:

  • Refer to other professionals (36) vs. professional development (23) =, Χ2 = 2.864, p = .091.


LEVEL FOUR:

  • Workload (7).
ATLANTIC
(n=69)		 LEVEL ONE:

  • Resources (30) vs. Psychiatrist Access (29), Χ2 = 0.02, p = 0.90.

  • Resources (30) vs. Refer to Other Professionals (21), Χ2 = 1.59, p = 0.21.

  • Psychiatrist Access (29) vs. Refer to Other Professionals (21), Χ2 = 1.20, p = 0.26.

  • Resources (30) vs. Process Issues (19), Χ2 = 3.69, p = 0.05.


LEVEL TWO:

  • Process Issues (19) vs. Professional Development (9), Χ2 = 3.57, p = 0.05.


LEVEL THREE:

  • Professional Development (9).


LEVEL FOUR:

  • Workload (1).
NORTHERN
(n=17)		 LEVEL ONE :

  • Resources (10) vs. Process Issues (6), Χ2 = 1.00, p = 0.32.

  • Resource (10) vs. Psychiatrist Access (5), Χ2 = 1.67, p = 0.20.

  • Resources (10) vs. Professional Development (3), Χ2 = 3.77, p = 0.05.


LEVEL TWO:

  • Process Issues (6) vs. Professional Development (3), Χ2 = 1.00, p = 0.32.

  • Psychiatrist Access (5) vs. Workload (2), Χ2 = 1.29, p = 0.26.

  • Refer to Other Professionals (2).
1.

Levels of importance are in descending order.

2.

Level of importance is determined through chi-square analysis, based on statistically significant difference between frequencies. When a difference was found between two frequencies, it was statistically valid to assume that frequencies with a larger spread would also be significant, and thus not all possible pairs of chi-square analyses had to be conducted. Depending on their patterns of significant differences, some themes were clearly present at only one level of priority for PCPs, whereas others were present at multiple levels. As such, levels were not simply determined by direct difference between chi-squares, but also the overall patterns of differences (e.g., if X and Y were not significant, but X was significantly different from Z and Y was not, it is logical to assume that X stands apart from Y and Z at a higher level of importance). Using such logic allowed for more subtle discrimination between levels of importance.