Table 3 Relevance and Feasibility of the RID intervention
|
Internal project leader N = 15 N, (%) |
External coach N = 6 a N, (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1) Researchers | ||
| Added value tailored information provision b | ||
| Strongly | 9 (60%) | 12 (75%) |
| To a reasonable extent | 5 (33%) | 3 (19%) |
| To some extent | 1 (7%) | 1 (6%) |
| 2) Internal project leader | ||
| Competence of project leader c perceived by coach | ||
| Competent or very competent | N.A. | 9 (56%) |
| Not competent/not incompetent | N.A. | 3 (19%) |
| Other d | N.A. | 4 (25%) |
| 3) External coach | ||
| a) Added value of coaching b | ||
| Strongly | 7 (47%) | 6 (38%) |
| To a reasonable extent | 6 (40%) | 9 (56%) |
| To some extent | 2 (13%) | 1 (6%) |
| b) Coaching necessity for (continued) implementation | ||
| Yes | 5 (33%) | 9 (56%) |
| No | 7 (47%) | 4 (25%) |
| I don’t know | 3 (20%) | 3 (19%) |
| c) Competence of coach c perceived by project leader | ||
| Competent or very competent | 11 (73%) | N.A. |
| Not competent/not incompetent | 1 (7%) | N.A. |
| Other d | 3 (20%) | N.A. |