Table 3.
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | 95%CI | P | β | 95%CI | P | β | 95%CI | P | |
Fixed Part | |||||||||
Intercept | 58.93 | 56.83 | 56.8 | ||||||
Intervention effect | |||||||||
Phase 1 (without visual signal) | Ref | < 10−3 | Ref | < 10−3 | < 10−3 | ||||
Phase 2 (with visual signal) | −4.28 | [−5.04; − 3.52] | −4.19 | [−4.63; − 3.74] | − 4.19 | [− 4.63; − 3.75] | |||
Period | |||||||||
Night (09:00 PM – 07:00 AM) | Ref | < 10− 3 | Ref | < 10− 3 | |||||
Day (07:00 AM – 09:00 PM) | 1.51 | [1.17; 1.85] | 1.53 | [1.19; 1.87] | |||||
Number of calls per minute | |||||||||
0 | Ref | 0.74 | 0.97 | ||||||
1–2 | −0.03 | [−0.22; 0.17] | 0.03 | [−0.25; 0.31] | |||||
≥ 3 | 0.06 | [−0.2; 0.31] | 0,00 | [−0.58; 0.58] | |||||
Number EMDC workers | |||||||||
8–9 | Ref | < 10−3 | < 10− 3 | ||||||
10–17 | 1.41 | [0.88; 1.94] | 1.36 | [0.77; 1.95] | |||||
18–20 | 1.72 | [0.79; 2.64] | 2.76 | [1.6; 3.92] | |||||
Tnteraction between the number of calls per minute and the number of EMDC workers | Ref | ||||||||
0 call per minute | 0.04 | ||||||||
1–2 calls per minute / 10–17 workers | −0.01 | [−0.41; 0.39] | |||||||
≥ 3 calls per minute / 10–17 workers | 0.24 | [−0.43; 0.90] | |||||||
1–2 calls per minute / 18–20 workers | −1.1 | [−1.97; −0.22] | |||||||
≥ 3 calls per minute / 18–20 workers | −1.16 | [−2.16; −0.16] | |||||||
Random Part | |||||||||
Level2: Time block | 1.58 | 0.39 | 0.38 | ||||||
Level1: Minute | 13.93 | 13.88 | 13.87 | ||||||
−2*loglikelihood: | 47,398.11 | 47,308.62 | 47,298.37 | ||||||
Units: Time block | 46 | 46 | 46 | ||||||
Units: Minute | 8640 | 8640 | 8640 |
CI Confidence Interval