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

Table 5 Impact of VET schools’ health promotion capacity, scored by teachers, on student dropout rates (n = 38 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	0.57	−1.93;3.08	0.65	−0.38	−2.67;1.92	0.74
Communication	2.53	−0.84;5.90	0.14	1.00	−2.83;4.82	0.60
Resources	−1.64	−5.00;1.72	0.33	−0.84	−4.32;2.65	0.62
School-based leadership	−0.43	−3.21;2.36	0.76	−0.84	− 3.31;1.64	0.49
Teaching staff	0.67	−2.51;3.86	0.67	1.23	−2.16;4.62	0.46
Students	2.75	−1.58;7.08	0.21	0.21	−3.96;4.37	0.92
Total health promotion capacity	0.70	−3.81;5.20	0.76	−0.82	−5.37;3.72	0.71

^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