| Title |
Evaluation of the theory-based Quality Improvement in Physical Therapy (QUIP) programme: a one-group, pre-test post-test pilot study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-194 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Geert M Rutten, Janneke Harting, L Kay Bartholomew, Angelique Schlief, Rob AB Oostendorp, Nanne K de Vries |
| Abstract |
Guideline adherence in physical therapy is far from optimal, which has consequences for the effectiveness and efficiency of physical therapy care. Programmes to enhance guideline adherence have, so far, been relatively ineffective. We systematically developed a theory-based Quality Improvement in Physical Therapy (QUIP) programme aimed at the individual performance level (practicing physiotherapists; PTs) and the practice organization level (practice quality manager; PQM). The aim of the study was to pilot test the multilevel QUIP programme's effectiveness and the fidelity, acceptability and feasibility of its implementation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 24% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
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 03 June 2013.
All research outputs
#18,340,012
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,438
of 7,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,232
of 195,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#108
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,593 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 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 195,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.