Dropout at Danish vocational schools: does the school’s health promotion capacity play a role? A survey- and register-based prospective study

Table 4 Impact of VET schools’ health promotion capacity, scored by school managers, on student dropout rates (n = 58 schools)

	Model 1 (crude)			Model 2 (adjusted ^b)
	β estimate ^a	95% CI	p-value	β estimate ^a	95% CI	p-value
Health promotion capacity domain
Knowledge development	1.39	−0.37;3.16	0.12	0.95	−1.01;2.91	0.34
Communication	2.20	−0.55;4.94	0.11	0.96	−1.68;3.59	0.47
Resources	0.06	−2.59;2.70	0.97	−1.28	−3.81;1.24	0.31
School-based leadership	1.11	−1.06;3.28	0.31	0.76	−1.43;2.95	0.49
Teaching staff	−1.23	− 3.70;1.25	0.33	0.03	−2.21;2.26	0.98
Students	−0.05	−2.19;2.09	0.96	−0.25	−2.21;1.71	0.80
Total health promotion capacity	0.00	−2.17;4.15	0.53	0.30	−2.95;3.55	0.85

^a Estimates derived from student dropout rates as dependent variable, giving the percentage change in student dropout rate per one increase in health promotion capacity on a 5-point Likert scale (from “very low degree” to “very high degree”)
^b Adjusted for geographical location, school size, school type, VET-level, students’ age and students’ ethnicity

ISSN: 1471-2458