Improving interprofessional collaboration in Norwegian primary schools: A cluster-randomized study evaluating effects of the LOG model on teachers’ perceptions of interprofessional collaboration

Figures & data

Figure 1. Meeting arenas in the LOG model, with communication and feedback loops on both the municipal and school levels

Figure 2. Flow chart of the study

Table 1. Items included in six dimensions of interprofessional collaboration, based on PINCOM-Q. Means and standard deviation

Dimensions	PINCOM-Q items	Mean (SD)	Cronbach Alpha
Organizational level
Organizational culture			0.63
	It is common that interprofessional collaboration is highly valued	2.58 (1.06)
	Interprofessional groups are composed of professionals that are strongly influenced by the organizational culture they belong to	2.59 (0.99)
	The organizations are characterized by the wish to work interprofessionally	2.96 (1.30)
Organizational aim			0.71
	Interprofessional work is an area of priority in our school	3.26 (1.48)
	Interprofessional collaboration is well described in our school’s plans	3.54 (1.31)
	I am familiar with the plans of our school	3.54 (1.46)
	Our school has definite and clear aims regarding interprofessional collaboration	3.45 (1.32)
Group level
Interprofessional climate			0.62
	In the interprofessional groups I participate in, exchange of information is never a problem	2.90 (1.20)
	Professionals are good at exchanging information with each other about how they work	3.22 (1.22)
	I experience that I can get help and social support from the other professionals in the interprofessional groups I participate in	2.51 (1.06)
	I find that other professionals in the interprofessional collaboration groups I participate in, are willing to listen to me if I have problems	2.23 (0.96)
	I find that I am appreciated by other professionals in the interprofessional groups I participate in	2.19 (0.90)
	I have almost never found that other professionals do not understand what I am trying to express and/or report	2.36 (1.20)
Leadership			0.74
	I often experience that effective interprofessional groups have a clear and defined leader	2.35 (1.20)
	It is important that the group leader arrange the work in ways that help the group reach their goals	1.93 (0.93)
Individual level
Professional power			0.76
	Some professionals dominate the interprofessional meetings with their professional viewpoints	3.95 (1.38)
	Some professionals supply the premises in interprofessional groups	4.24 (1.43)
	Sometimes I am not able to present my perspectives because other high-status professionals talk all the time	4.92 (1.47)
	Occasionally interprofessional groups do not work because some professionals dominate the meetings	4.89 (1.50)
Motivation			0.65
	I find working in interprofessional groups valuable	2.31 (1.04)
	I get to use my creativity and imagination when I work in interprofessional groups	3.25 (1.32)
	I experience personal growth when I work in interprofessional groups	2.59 (0.98)

Table 2. The success of randomization based on T1 survey (N = 152–157)

Variables (N = 152–157)	Teachers from experimental schools, M (SD)	Teachers from control schools, M (SD)	p-value
Sex (1 = Men, 2 = Women)	1.70 (0.46)	1.75 (0.44)	0.501
Years of experience as a teacher (years)	17.15 (9.73)	16.73 (9.06)	0.785
Educational level	0.80 (0.40)	0.89 (0.32)	0.149
Organizational culture	2.62 (0.88)	2.81 (0.90)	0.187
Organizational aim	3.34 (1.17)	3.55 (1.17)	0.256
Interprofessional climate	2.53 (0.89)	2.62 (0.75)	0.473
Leadership	1.96 (0.80)	2.37 (1.08)	0.008
Professional power	4.54 (1.20)	4.46 (1.27)	0.679
Motivation	2.65 (0.97)	2.80 (0.91)	0.327

Table 3. Means, standard deviations (SD), and bivariate intercorrelations for the six dimensions of interprofessional collaboration, based on T1 data

N = 152	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1.Interprofessional climate	2.57	0.83	-
2.Organizational culture	2.71	0.89	0.47***
3.Professional power	4.50	1.23	0.66***	0.34***
4.Organizational aim	3.44	1.17	0.28*	0.15	0.25
5.Leadership	2.15	0.92	−0.17	−0.12	−0.36***	0.13
6.Motivation	2.72	0.94	0.49***	0.24	0.56***	0.38***	−0.25	-

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Table 4. T2 effects of the LOG model derived from Model 1, a two-level model without control for T1

Factors	Coefficient	p-value	ICC	n
Organizational culture	−0.204	0.241	0.057	112
Organizational aim	−0.800	0.006	0.204	112
Interprofessional climate	−0.146	0.426	0.020	113
Leadership	−0.228	0.183	<0.001	113
Professional power	−0.143	0.587	0.068	113
Motivation	−0.027	0.904	0.160	113

Figure 3. The standardized effects from Model 1, with 95% confidence intervals

Table 5. T2 effects of the LOG model derived from Model 2, a two-level model with control for T1. Coefficients and 95% confidence intervals (CI 95%)

Factors	Coefficient	pvalue	n
Organizational culture	−0.119	0.472	84
Organizational aim	−0.503	0.070	84
Interprofessional climate	0.014	0.936	85
Leadership	−0.224	0.202	85
Professional power	−0.353	0.142	85
Motivation	0.062	0.783	85

Figure 4. The standardized effects from Model 2, with 95% confidence intervals