Page 168 - Demo

Chapter 6166condition (CAU versus intervention) in the model (model 6). The effect of the MDET method on the slope was not significantly different for CAU versus implementation homes (B = 0.01, SE = 0.02, p = .816), and the model fit did not significantly improve (%ud835%udf122 (4) = 3.90, p = .420). The 90% confidence interval for the interaction term in model 6 was [-0.03; 0.04].Effect of MDET on incidents reports To examine whether implementation of MDET was not related to an increase in incident reports, we investigated the extent to which the implementation of MDET impacted the number of weekly recorded incident reports (see Table 5). As an equivalence test, we calculated the 90% confidence interval for the estimated effect of the interaction between time, start of the MDET, and care home condition on incident reports (model 6 in Table 5). The smallest effect size of interest was set at [-0.2; 0.2].Table 5 Results of Linear Mixed Effects Models: Impact of the Implementation of MDET on Weekly Recorded Incident ReportsFixed effects B SE %u0394DSModel 1Intercept 12.14*** 2.27Model 2 5304***Intercept 12.23*** 2.26Model 3 -3*Intercept 12.20*** 2.45Time 0.0004 0.01Model 4 1Intercept 12.22*** 2.45Time -0.002 0.01Start MDET implementation 0.27 0.74Model 5 -3*Intercept 12.71*** 2.48Time -0.01 0.02Start MDET implementation -1.54 1.59Time*Start MDET implementation0.02 0.02