Table 6.
Multilevel models predicting change in knowledge and related quotes
| Knowledge (ICC=0.44) | |||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
| Intercept | 6.92* | 5.97* | 6.37* |
| Time | 0.41* | 0.42* | |
| Group | −0.62 | ||
| σ2 e | 1.39* | 1.10* | 1.10* |
| σ2 u0 | 1.12* | 1.20* | 1.11* |
| −2*log(lh) | 497.62 | 474.3 | 471.8 |
| df | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Δ−2*log(lh) | 23.3* | 2.5 | |
| Δdf | 1 | 1 | |
| Pseudo R1 2 | 0.21 | ||
| Pseudo R2 2 | 0.01 | ||
| Interview quotes | |
| Quote 4 | ID9: … I have become more conscious and more structured concerning what I need to think about when working through the different steps [of the implementation], and also the clarification of what behavior it is that I want to change. |
| Quote 5 | ID1: It is not a failure that it didn’t go well… //…like, okay, we tried something, oh well—let’s try again, and in this way you can proceed. So, it [the action plan for the implementation] is not finished when you launch it. |
| Quote 6 | ID7: //…the leading aspect is somehow something you can learn; to implement something new without having to have deep knowledge of the particular [implementation case]…then I can feel more confident in managing restructurings. //…previously when I have been manager and implemented quality registries…//…I think I lost myself in the content [of the implementation] in some way…// |
Table entries represent unstandardised parameter estimates. Individual level: n=128–140, group level: n=42. Time is centred at WS1/2; intervention group is coded 0=intervention group 1 and 1=intervention group 2.
*P<.05.
ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient.