Secondary analyses (other factors influencing clinicians' integration of advice)
WOA, ’
Table WOA and interaction between clinicians' demographics, strength of advice and study arm‘Other’ types of HCPs had higher WOA scores (0.50 [95% CI 0.42, 0.58]) than nurses (0.39 [95% CI 0.35, 0.43], WOA difference = −0.11 [95% CI ‐0.20, −0.21]) and doctors (0.34 [95% CI 0.30, 0.37], WOA difference = −0.16 [95% CI ‐0.25, −0.07]). There was no interaction between profession and study arm on WOA (Participants with total experience of 15+ years had a slightly higher WOA score (0.38 [95% CI 0.35, 0.41]) than less experienced staff (0.36 [95% CI 0.32, 0.41], WOA difference = 0.02 [95% CI ‐0.04, 0.07]). There was no interaction between experience and study arm on WOA (WOA scores of participants with up to 5 years of palliative care experience were higher (0.43 [95% CI 0.38, 0.48]) than those with 6–14 years of palliative care experience (0.35 [95% CI 0.30, 0.39], WOA difference = −0.08 [95% CI ‐0.15, −0.015]) and those with over 15 years of experience (0.36 [95% CI 0.31, 0.40], WOA difference = −0.07 [95% CI ‐0.14, −0.01]). There was no interaction between palliative care experience and study arm on WOA (Advice given as a 75% probability estimate had a lower WOA score (0.31 [95% CI 0.28, 0.35]) than advice received at either the 50% (0.40 [95% CI 0.35, 0.44], WOA difference = 0.08 [95% CI 0.04, 0.12]) or 90% level (0.43 [95% CI 0.40, 0.47], WOA difference = 0.12 [95% CI 0.09, 0.15]). The overall interaction between strength of advice and study arm on WOA was significant (