Table 1

Statistical analysis of the COM-B model as applied to the EPDWG decisions

COM—variableVariable (B or COM)Kendall’s tauP value
Cross-sectional analysis
 Pandemic phase (case load)Implementation rate0.23<0.01
 Pandemic phase (case load)*Implementation rate*0.77<0.01
 Pandemic phase (case load)Hospital to expert ratio (centre)0.24<0.01
 Hospital to expert ratio (centre)Implementation rate0.41<0.01
 Hospital to expert ratio (domain)Implementation rate−0.36<0.01
 Resource dependency (centre)Implementation rate0.160.03
 Resource dependency (centre)Hospital to expert ratio (centre)0.45<0.01
 Pandemic phase (case load)Resource dependency (centre)0.30<0.01
 Resource dependency (domain)Hospital to expert ratio (domain)0.47<0.01
Longitudinal analysis
 Implementation rateCatch-up implementation−0.150.04
 Resource dependency (centre)Catch-up implementation−0.180.01
 Resource dependency (domain)Catch-up implementation0.4<0.01
 Hospital to expert ratio (domain)Catch-up implementation0.47<0.01
Influence of media attitude and governmental strictness
 Media attitudeImplementation rate0.170.02
 Media attitudeHospital to expert ratio (centre)−0.31<0.01
 Governmental strictnessImplementation rate0.3<0.01
 Governmental strictnessResource dependency (centre)−0.36<0.01
  • *After omitting outliers (=high responses despite low case load or relatively low responses despite highest case loads).

  • B, behaviour change; COM, capability, opportunity, motivation; EPDWG, European Pediatric Dialysis Working Group.