Table 2.
Implementation effectiveness | Low | Medium | High | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Site ID | 102 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 101 | 103 | |
I. Individuals involved | |||||||
Knowledge and beliefs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Self-efficacy | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
I. Intervention characteristics | |||||||
Complexity | 0 | − 2 | − 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
III. Inner setting | |||||||
Relative priority | − 1 | − 1 | − 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | * |
Available resources | − 1 | − 1 | (mixed) 0 | 1 | 1 | (mixed) 0 | * |
Compatibility | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Leadership engagement | − 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ** |
Goals and feedback | − 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ** |
Access to knowledge and information | 0 | − 1 | − 1 | − 1 | 1 | 0 | |
IV. Outer setting | |||||||
External policies and incentives | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
V. Process | |||||||
Engaging | − 1 | − 1 | Missing | (mixed) 0 | Missing | 2 | ** |
Champions | − 1 | − 1 | Missing | 2 | 2 | Missing | ** |
**Construct strongly distinguishes between low and high implementation effectiveness
*Construct weakly distinguishes between low and high implementation effectiveness