Contextual determinants of family-driven care implementation in juvenile justice settings

Health & Justice

Table 3 Model building for outcome 1: family-driven Care principles (n = 140)

	Model 1 (Primary Predictors)	Model 2 (Full Model)	Model 3 (Reduced) ^b	Model 4 (Parsimonious) ^c
Fixed Effects^a	β (SE)	β (SE)	β (SE)	β (SE)
Complexity	-0.11 (0.05)*	-0.10 (0.07)*	-0.11 (0.05)*	-0.10 (0.05)*
Negative Attitudes	-0.04 (0.07)	-0.03 (0.07)
Culture	0.22 (0.07)**	0.21 (0.07)**	0.22 (0.07)***	0.22 (0.07)***
Compatibility	-0.01 (0.07)	0.01 (0.07)
Relative Priority	0.18 (0.06)**	0.17 (0.06)**	0.18 (0.06)**	0.21 (0.06)***
Access to Knowledge	0.9 (0.05)	0.11 (0.06)	0.12 (0.05)*	0.13 (0.05)*
Leadership Engagement	0.17 (0.07)*	0.16 (0.07)*	0.17 (0.06)**	0.21 (0.06)***
Available Resources	0.05 (0.06)	0.05 (0.06)
External Partnerships	0.09 (0.04)	0.09 (0.05)	0.09 (0.04)
Peer Pressure	0.08 (0.07)	0.11 (0.07)	0.12 (0.07)
Caseload		0.004 (0.002)*	0.004 (0.002)*	0.004 (0.002)*
Years with Agency
<5 years		0.14 (0.10)	0.14 (0.09)
Between 5–10 years		-0.15 (0.09)	-0.14 (0.09)
10 + years		Ref	Ref

Note: *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001; Estimates based on Generalized Linear Mixed Model with random intercept, adjusted for other variables in the model
^a Variables with p < 0.25 in the unadjusted models (Table 2), were included in the model-building process
^b Removed variables with p > 0.25 from full model
^c Only includes significant variables
ICC: about 3% of the variability in the outcome is at the agency level

ISSN: 2194-7899