Table 1
Characteristics of the FDTs (n = 224).
| VARIABLE | DESCRIPTIVE STATISTIC N (%)/MEAN (SD) |
|---|---|
| Team composition | |
| Basic teams (general practitioners, nurses and public health workers) | 39 (17.41%) |
| Standard teams (general practitioners, nurses, public health workers and village doctors or specialists) | 122 (54.46%) |
| Advanced teams (general practitioners, nurses, public health workers, village doctors or specialists and others) | 63 (28.13%) |
| Team size | 9.49 (3.85) |
| Establishment year | 5.37 (2.97) |
| The ratio of contracted residents to general practitioners | 2269.52 (2159.99) |
| IPC | 3.97 (0.35) |
| Shared goals and visions | 0.53 (0.07) |
| Internalization | 0.63 (0.08) |
| Formalization | 0.50 (0.08) |
| Governance | 1.11 (0.14) |
| Incentive | 1.19 (0.18) |
| IC | 71.76 (8.00) |
| Professional integration | 15.45 (6.21) |
| Cultural competence | 21.48 (1.93) |
| Technical competence | 34.82 (3.01) |
Table 2
Correlation analysis of team composition, IPC and IC.
| VARIABLE | RELEVANCE (r) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| TEAM COMPOSITION | IPC | IC | |
| Team composition | 1.000 | – | – |
| IPC | 0.103 | 1.000 | – |
| IC | 0.334*** | 0.503*** | 1.000 |
[i] Note: ***p < 0.001.
Table 3
Mediation analysis of IPC in the association between team composition and IC.
| COMPARISON | PATH | ESTIMATE (B) | 95%CI | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard vs. Basic | Team composition → IPC | 0.168 | 0.040 to 0.295 | 0.010 |
| IPC→IC | 10.390 | 7.916 to 12.864 | <0.001 | |
| Direct Effect | 0.243 | –2.157 to 2.643 | 0.842 | |
| Indirect Effect | 1.743 | 0.490 to 3.128 | – | |
| Total Effect | 1.986 | –0.719 to 4.691 | 0.149 | |
| Advanced vs. Basic | Team composition → IPC | 0.196 | 0.051 to 0.341 | 0.008 |
| IPC→IC | 10.390 | 7.916 to 12.864 | <0.001 | |
| Direct Effect | 5.351 | 2.624 to 8.077 | <0.001 | |
| Indirect Effect | 2.035 | 0.548 to 3.492 | – | |
| Total Effect | 7.386 | 4.316 to 10.456 | <0.001 |
[i] Note: Basic teams as the reference group. The dependent variable was IC scores, and the mediator was IPC scores. All analyses were adjusted for team size, establishment year, and the ratio of contracted residents to general practitioners. A 95% confidence interval (CI) excluding zero indicates statistically significant mediation.
Figure 1
Mediation model of IPC in the association between team composition and IC.
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.
Figure 2
Path analysis of IPC effect on IC.
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.
Table S1
Collinearity of independent variables in the regression analysis of team composition and IC.
| VARIANCE INFLATION FACTOR | |
|---|---|
| Team composition | 1.115 |
| Team size | 1.067 |
| Establishment year | 1.037 |
| The ratio of contracted residents to general practitioners | 1.034 |
Table S2
Collinearity of independent variables in the regression analysis of team composition and IPC.
| VARIANCE INFLATION FACTOR | |
|---|---|
| Team composition | 1.115 |
| Team size | 1.067 |
| Establishment year | 1.037 |
| The ratio of contracted residents to general practitioners | 1.034 |
Table S3
Collinearity of independent variables in the regression analysis of IPC and IC.
| VARIANCE INFLATION FACTOR | |
|---|---|
| IPC | 1.049 |
| Team size | 1.027 |
| Establishment year | 1.024 |
| The ratio of contracted residents to general practitioners | 1.020 |
Table S4
Collinearity of independent variables in the regression analysis of team composition, IPC and IC.
| VARIANCE INFLATION FACTOR | |
|---|---|
| Team composition | 1.145 |
| IPC | 1.077 |
| Team size | 1.107 |
| Establishment year | 1.062 |
| The ratio of contracted residents to general practitioners | 1.039 |