Working with alcohol prevention in occupational health services: “knowing how” is more important than “knowing that” – the WIRUS OHS study

Table 2 Associations between alcohol knowledge and alcohol intervention frequency, without (model 1) and with (model 2) interaction between knowledge types

Variable	r	Model 1				Model 2
				95% CI for b		Model 2
		β	b	Lower	Upper	β
Theoretical knowledge	0.38***	−0.03^ns	−0.03^ns	−0.13	0.07	0.02^ns
Practical knowledge	0.65***	0.60***	0.39***	0.31	0.46	0.71***
Theoretical x practical^A	0.60***	–	–	–	–	−0.15^ns
Sex	−0.01^ns	0.03^ns	0.11^ns	−0.24	0.46	0.03^ns
Age	0.23***	−0.00^ns	−0.00^ns	−0.02	0.02	−0.01^ns
Education length	0.18**	0.10*	0.08*	0.00	0.15	0.10*
OHS experience	0.18**	0.06^ns	0.01^ns	−0.01	0.03	0.06^ns
Drinking attitudes	−0.04^ns	0.02^ns	0.07^ns	−0.27	0.41	0.02^ns
Ed. nurse^B	0.25***	0.11^ns	0.35^ns	−0.09	0.79	0.11^ns
Ed. physician^B	0.25***	0.11^ns	0.54^ns	−0.04	1.12	0.12^ns
Ed. physiotherapist^B	−0.22***	0.04^ns	0.18^ns	−0.34	0.70	0.05^ns
Ed. other health prof.^B	−0.23***	−0.05^ns	−0.22^ns	−0.70	0.27	−0.05^ns

Model 1: R² = 0.47***
Model 2: R² = 0.47***; ΔR² = 0.001^ns
Results from bivariate correlation analyses and multiple linear regression analyses (N = 322); Dependent variable = alcohol intervention frequency
r Pearson correlation coefficient, β standardized regression coefficient, b unstandardized regression coefficient, CI confidence interval, Ed. educational background
^AInteraction term (theoretical x practical knowledge)
^BRef. = all other educational backgrounds; ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
^nsNon-significant (p ≥ 0.05)

ISSN: 1940-0640