Nationwide implementation of a multifaceted tailored strategy to improve uptake of standardized structured reporting in pathology: an effect and process evaluation

Table 2 Outcomes of effect evaluation and subgroups

Group pathology reporting analyzed	n	Subgroup	Change in level between group (%)	p value	Change in level within group (%)	p value	Change in trend between group (%)	p value	Change in trend within group (%)	p value
Tumor groups	32,298	Gastrointestinal	Ref		+2.9%	p=.018^A	Ref		−0.4%	p=.000^a
	120,381	Gynecological	−3.3	p=.045^A	+0.1%	p=.970	−0.3%	p=.003^A	−0.0%	p=.819
	60,806	Urological	+0.2	p=.928	+3.0%	p=.003^A	+0.4%	p=.001^A	0.0%	p=.903
Retrieval method	91,705^b	Biopsies	Ref		+0.6%	p=.661	Ref		−0.0%	p=.589
Retrieval method	124,691	Resections	+1.4	p=.355	+2.5%	p=.007^A	−.010%	p=.924	−0.1%	p=.393
Type of laboratory	188,665	Non-academic	Ref		+2.2%	p=.053	ref		−0.1%	p=.428
Type of laboratory	24,820	Academic	+4.2	p=.024^A	−2.4%	p=.142	+0.1%	p=.273	−0.2%	p=.064

^aThis effect was significant, based on α<.05
^bAs a result of a requested re-analysis, we included 2911 additional cases for this subgroup analysis only

ISSN: 1748-5908