↓ Skip to main content

Clinical interventions, implementation interventions, and the potential greyness in between -a discussion paper

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 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
Clinical interventions, implementation interventions, and the potential greyness in between -a discussion paper
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1958-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann Catrine Eldh, Joan Almost, Kara DeCorby-Watson, Wendy Gifford, Gill Harvey, Henna Hasson, Deborah Kenny, Sheila Moodie, Lars Wallin, Jennifer Yost

Abstract

There is increasing awareness that regardless of the proven value of clinical interventions, the use of effective strategies to implement such interventions into clinical practice is necessary to ensure that patients receive the benefits. However, there is often confusion between what is the clinical intervention and what is the implementation intervention. This may be caused by a lack of conceptual clarity between 'intervention' and 'implementation', yet at other times by ambiguity in application. We suggest that both the scientific and the clinical communities would benefit from greater clarity; therefore, in this paper, we address the concepts of intervention and implementation, primarily as in clinical interventions and implementation interventions, and explore the grey area in between. To begin, we consider the similarities, differences and potential greyness between clinical interventions and implementation interventions through an overview of concepts. This is illustrated with reference to two examples of clinical interventions and implementation intervention studies, including the potential ambiguity in between. We then discuss strategies to explore the hybridity of clinical-implementation intervention studies, including the role of theories, frameworks, models, and reporting guidelines that can be applied to help clarify the clinical and implementation intervention, respectively. Semantics provide opportunities for improved precision in depicting what is 'intervention' and what is 'implementation' in health care research. Further, attention to study design, the use of theory, and adoption of reporting guidelines can assist in distinguishing between the clinical intervention and the implementation intervention. However, certain aspects may remain unclear in analyses of hybrid studies of clinical and implementation interventions. Recognizing this potential greyness can inform further discourse.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 158 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 15%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 8 5%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 45 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 16%
Psychology 20 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 12%
Social Sciences 16 10%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 53 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,762,287
of 25,398,331 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,153
of 8,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,366
of 422,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#43
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,398,331 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,644 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 422,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.