↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of a survey to measure features of clinical networks

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Development and validation of a survey to measure features of clinical networks
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1800-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernadette Bea Brown, Mary Haines, Sandy Middleton, Christine Paul, Catherine D’Este, Emily Klineberg, Elizabeth Elliott, on behalf of the Clinical Networks Research Group

Abstract

Networks of clinical experts are increasingly being implemented as a strategy to improve health care processes and outcomes and achieve change in the health system. Few are ever formally evaluated and, when this is done, not all networks are equally successful in their efforts. There is a need to formatively assess the strategic and operational management and leadership of networks to identify where functioning could be improved to maximise impact. This paper outlines the development and psychometric evaluation of an Internet survey to measure features of clinical networks and provides descriptive results from a sample of members of 19 diverse clinical networks responsible for evidence-based quality improvement across a large geographical region. Instrument development was based on: a review of published and grey literature; a qualitative study of clinical network members; a program logic framework; and consultation with stakeholders. The resulting domain structure was validated for a sample of 592 clinical network members using confirmatory factor analysis. Scale reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. A summary score was calculated for each domain and aggregate level means and ranges are reported. The instrument was shown to have good construct validity across seven domains as demonstrated by a high level of internal consistency, and all Cronbach's α coefficients were equal to or above 0.75. In the survey sample of network members there was strong reported commitment and belief in network-led quality improvement initiatives, which were perceived to have improved quality of care (72.8 %) and patient outcomes (63.2 %). Network managers were perceived to be effective leaders and clinical co-chairs were perceived as champions for change. Perceived external support had the lowest summary score across the seven domains. This survey, which has good construct validity and internal reliability, provides a valid instrument to use in future research related to clinical networks. The survey will be of use to health service managers to identify strengths and areas where networks can be improved to increase effectiveness and impact on quality of care and patient outcomes. Equally, the survey could be adapted for use in the assessment of other types of networks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 8%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 18 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,346,264
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,122
of 7,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,620
of 322,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#171
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 322,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.