The Diffusion of Home-Based Reablement in Norwegian Municipalities

Figures & data

Table 1 Descriptives of Five Statements About Innovativeness

	Mean	Std. Dev.	N
My municipality is generally innovative within health and care services	5.05	1.243	269
My municipality actively works to introduce new types of services	5.24	1.209	268
My municipality actively works to implement welfare technology	5.76	1.155	269
My municipality actively works to introduce new forms of collaboration within municipal services	5.23	1.238	266
My municipality actively works to introduce new forms of collaboration that include the private or voluntary sector	4.55	1.401	268
Subjective perception of innovation. Summary index of five items. (Cronbach alpha = 0.86)	5.17	0.998	271

Notes: Response scale: 1=Totally disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Partly disagree, 4=Neither agree nor disagree, 5=Partly agree, 6=Agree, 7=Totally agree).

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics. (Municipalities That Have Adopted HBR Only)

Variable	N	Mean/%	Std. Deviation	Min–Max
Subjective perception of innovativeness (index, 5 items)	187	5.31	0.92	2.00–7.00
Years since adoption of HBR	186	3.73	1.83	1.00–9.00
Municipality participated in HBR project 2013–2015 (No=0, Yes=1)	189	16%	–	–
Sex (m=0, f=1)	188	86%	–	–
Age	188	45.59	10.37	24–65
Years employed in organization	188	12.26	9.63	0–35
Higher education (masters’ level) (No=0, Yes=1)	189	19%	–	–
Management education (No=0, Yes=1)	189	44%	–	–
Number of inhabitants (Org. Size)	189	14,275.82	25,286.34	931–279,792
Number of inhabitants (Org. Size) (Log-transformed)	189	8.93	1.08	6.84–12.54
Inhabitants per square km	187	75.49	184.84	0.33–1957.94
Inhabitants per square km (Log-transformed)	187	2.9	1.75	−1.11–7.58
Persons 67+ (% of pop)	187	17.11	3.36	10.52–26.00
Unemployment rate (%)	189	1.95	0.69	0.50–4.40
Tax base per inhabitant 17+ (NOK)	189	877,384	161,953	0–1,476,500

Figure 1 Year of adoption of reablement. Number of new adopters of HBR each year, and cumulative number.

Table 3 Subjective Perception of Innovativeness by HBR Adoption Status (Scale from 1 to 7)

HBR Adoption Status	Score on Subjective Perception of Innovativeness
	Mean	N	Std. Deviation
Not adopted, and have no plans to start HBR	4.77	33	1.28
Not adopted, but have concrete plans to start HBR	4.99	39	0.84
Adopted - Organized as a project.	5.09	28	1.13
Adopted - On a permanent basis.	5.35	159	0.88
Other answer	4.59	12	1.22
Total	5.17	271	1.00

Figure 2 Perception of innovativeness (scale from 2 to 7) by year of adoption of HBR.

Table 4 Multiple Linear Regression. Subjective Perception of Innovativeness

Independent Variables	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	B	Beta	B	Beta	B	Beta	B	Beta
Years since adoption of HBR	0.09*	0.17*	0.08*	0.16*	0.04	0.07	0.02	0.04
Municipality participated in HBR project 2013–2015 (No=0, Yes=1)			0.11	0.04	0.07	0.03	0.04	0.02
Sex (m=0, f=1)					−0.17	−0.06	-,12	−0.04
Age (24–65)					0.00	0.04	0.00	0.04
Years employed in organization					0.03***	0.32***	0.03***	0.31***
Higher education (masters’ level) (No=0, Yes=1)					0.56**	0.23**	0.52**	0.22**
Management education (No=0, Yes=1)					0.09	0.05	0.06	0.03
Number of inhabitants (Org. Size)							0.12	0.13
Inhabitants per square km							−0.00	−0.00
Persons 67+ (% of pop)							0.02	0.06
Unemployment rate (%)							0.08	0.06
Tax base per inhabitant							5.345E-8	0.01
Constant	5.00***		5.00***		4.63***		3.19***
Adj. R2	0.023		0.019		0.143		0.134
N	184		182		181		179

Notes: Significance level: *p<0.05. ** p<0.01. *** p<0.001. Subjective perception of innovativeness. Index, continuous, range from 2 (“low degree”) to 7 (“high degree”).

Table 5 Multiple Linear Regression. Years Since Adoption of HBR (Left) and Subjective Perception of Innovativeness (Right)

Dependent Variable	Years Since Adoption of HBR				Subjective Perception of Innovativeness
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 1		Model 2
Independent Variables	B	Beta	B	Beta	B	Beta	B	Beta
Municipality participated in HBR project 2013–2015 (No=0, Yes=1)	1.14***	0.23***	0.84*	0.17*	0.11	0.04	0.06	0.02
Sex (m=0, f=1)	−0.57	−0.11	−0.23	−0.04	−0.19	−0.07	−0.12	−0.05
Age (24–65)	−0.03	−0.16	−0.02	−0.12	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.04
Years employed in organization	0.05**	0.24**	0.04*	0.20*	0.03***	0.34***	0.03***	0.32***
Higher education (masters’ level) (0,1)	0.79*	0.17*	0.56	0.12	0.58***	0.24***	0.51**	0.22**
Management education (0,1)	0.20	0.05	0.08	0.02	0.10	0.06	0.07	0.04
Number of inhabitants (Org. Size)			0.41*	0.25*			0.12	0.14
Inhabitants per square km			−0.14	−0.13			−0.00	−0.01
Persons 67+ (% of pop)			−0.10	−0.19			0.01	0.04
Unemployment rate (%)			0.23	0.09			0.08	0.06
Tax base per inhabitant			−4.964E-7	−0.04			3.053E-8	0.01
Constant	4.50***		2.63		4.79***		3.31**
Adj. R2	0.091		0.151		0.144		0.138
N	183		181		184		182

Notes: Significance level: *p<0.05. **p<0.01. *** p<0.001. *Dependent variables: - Adoption of HBR: (q12). Number of years since HBR was started in the organization (municipality). - Subjective perception of innovativeness index, continuous, range from 2 (= “low degree”) to 7 (“high degree”).