| Title |
Can programme theory be used as a 'translational tool’ to optimise health service delivery in a national early years’ initiative in Scotland: a case study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-425 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer Eaves, Wendy Gnich |
| Abstract |
Theory-based evaluation (TBE) approaches are heralded as supporting formative evaluation by facilitating increased use of evaluative findings to guide programme improvement. It is essential that learning from programme implementation is better used to improve delivery and to inform other initiatives, if interventions are to be as effective as they have the potential to be. Nonetheless, few studies describe formative feedback methods, or report direct instrumental use of findings resulting from TBE. This paper uses the case of Scotland's, National Health Service, early years', oral health improvement initiative (Childsmile) to describe the use of TBE as a framework for providing feedback on delivery to programme staff and to assess its impact on programmatic action. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 23% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Librarian | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 9 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 October 2013.
All research outputs
#13,698,262
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,789
of 7,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,504
of 211,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#83
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,606 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 211,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.