↓ Skip to main content

Systematic, Multimethod Assessment of Adaptations Across Four Diverse Health Systems Interventions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 X users

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Systematic, Multimethod Assessment of Adaptations Across Four Diverse Health Systems Interventions
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Borsika A. Rabin, Marina McCreight, Catherine Battaglia, Roman Ayele, Robert E. Burke, Paul L. Hess, Joseph W. Frank, Russell E. Glasgow

Abstract

Many health outcomes and implementation science studies have demonstrated the importance of tailoring evidence-based care interventions to local context to improve fit. By adapting to local culture, history, resources, characteristics, and priorities, interventions are more likely to lead to improved outcomes. However, it is unclear how best to adapt evidence-based programs and promising innovations. There are few guides or examples of how to best categorize or assess health-care adaptations, and even fewer that are brief and practical for use by non-researchers. This study describes the importance and potential of assessing adaptations before, during, and after the implementation of health systems interventions. We present a promising multilevel and multimethod approach developed and being applied across four different health systems interventions. Finally, we discuss implications and opportunities for future research. The four case studies are diverse in the conditions addressed, interventions, and implementation strategies. They include two nurse coordinator-based transition of care interventions, a data and training-driven multimodal pain management project, and a cardiovascular patient-reported outcomes project, all of which are using audit and feedback. We used the same modified adaptation framework to document changes made to the interventions and implementation strategies. To create the modified framework, we started with the adaptation and modification model developed by Stirman and colleagues and expanded it by adding concepts from the RE-AIM framework. Our assessments address the intuitive domains of Who, How, When, What, and Why to classify and organize adaptations. For each case study, we discuss how the modified framework was operationalized, the multiple methods used to collect data, results to date and approaches utilized for data analysis. These methods include a real-time tracking system and structured interviews at key times during the intervention. We provide descriptive data on the types and categories of adaptations made and discuss lessons learned. The multimethod approaches demonstrate utility across diverse health systems interventions. The modified adaptations model adequately captures adaptations across the various projects and content areas. We recommend systematic documentation of adaptations in future clinical and public health research and have made our assessment materials publicly available.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Master 10 9%
Other 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 28 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Psychology 13 11%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 39 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,677,100
of 24,271,113 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#732
of 12,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,040
of 332,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#20
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,271,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.