Skip to main content

Table 4 Influence of health care professions, ED categories and linguistic regions on awareness, perception, knowledge of and interest in FUEDs issues and related interventions

From: Health care providers’ perception of the frequent emergency department user issue and of targeted case management interventions: a cross-sectional national survey in Switzerland

Response variables

Interactions

Profession

ED category

Ling. Region

Name

LRTχ2

P

LRTχ2

P

LRTχ2

P

LRTχ2

P

Question: How often have you been confronted with FUEDs over the past two years? (Awareness of FUEDs)

ED category x profession

5.14

0.023

–

–

–

–

0.74

0.389

Question: How important is the FUEDs problem in your hospital? (Perception of FUEDs)

all

> 2.13

> 0.143

0.95

0.330

16.41

< 0.001

0.47

0.494

Question: How do you evaluate your level of knowledge on the FUEDs issue? (Perceived knowledge of FUEDs)

all

> 2.73

> 0.095

4.14

0.042

5.11

0.024

2.06

0.152

Question: How do you evaluate your level of knowledge on CM interventions? (Perceived knowledge of CM)

all

> 0.85

> 0.355

2.10

0.147

2.49

0.115

3.59

0.058

Question: In your opinion, what are the characteristics of FUEDs? (Understanding of FUEDs)

all

> 2.24

> 0.135

2.72

0.099

0.04

0.832

30.49

< 0.001

Question: Which of these interventions do you know? (Knowledge of FUEDs interventions - Zero-inflation model)

all

> 1.19

> 0.275

4.59

0.032

0.53

0.467

0.14

0.707

Question: Which of these interventions do you know? (Knowledge of FUEDs interventions - Count model)

all

> 2.01

> 0.156

1.73

0.189

1.89

0.169

1.15

0.283

Question: To what extent do you think an intervention would be useful in your hospital? (Perceived usefulness of interventions)

all

> 2.72

> 0.095

1.53

0.216

19.50

< 0.001

18.51

< 0.001

Question: To what extent do you think a CM intervention targeting FUEDs would be useful in your department? (Perceived usefulness of CM)

all

> 3.27

> 0.070

1.79

0.181

7.77

0.005

0.32

0.572

Question: To what extent would you be interested in supporting/participating in implementing a case management intervention? (Interest in CM implementation)

ED category X profession

16.44

< 0.001

–

–

–

–

6.58

0.01

  1. Bold highlights the statistically significant effects. All models are GLMMs with hospital site as a random effect. Model selection was done under maximum likelihood using as initial model the model including the three-way interaction (and all two-way interactions) among the mean effects: health care profession, ED category and linguistic region. Health care profession and linguistic region, with two groups, were coded as categorical variables while ED category, with three groups, was coded as a linear variable to increase statistical power and simplify model interpretation. Interactions were eliminated using a backward stepwise approach using likelihood ratio tests (LRTχ2). The final models, when interactions were non-significant, included all mean effects. Awareness of FUEDs and perception of FUEDs were analyzed with a logistic mixed regression. The knowledge of FUEDs interventions (from 0 to 5) was analyzed using a zero-inflation Poisson distribution (that breaks down the data in two models: one that models the presence of extra-zeros; i.e., zero-inflation model and one that models a Poisson distribution; i.e., the count model). All others variables were analyzed using a Normal distribution
Back to article page

BMC Emergency Medicine

ISSN: 1471-227X

Contact us