↓ Skip to main content

The stages of implementation completion for evidence-based practice: protocol for a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2014
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The stages of implementation completion for evidence-based practice: protocol for a mixed methods study
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-9-43
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Saldana

Abstract

This protocol describes the 'development of outcome measures and suitable methodologies for dissemination and implementation approaches,' a priority for implementation research. Although many evidence-based practices (EBPs) have been developed, large knowledge gaps remain regarding how to routinely move EBPs into usual care. The lack of understanding of 'what it takes' to install EBPs has costly public health consequences, including a lack of availability of the most beneficial services, wasted efforts and resources on failed implementation attempts, and the potential for engendering reluctance to try implementing new EBPs after failed attempts.The Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC) is an eight-stage tool of implementation process and milestones, with stages spanning three implementation phases (pre-implementation, implementation, sustainability). Items delineate the date that a site completes implementation activities, yielding an assessment of duration (time to complete a stage), proportion (of stage activities completed), and a general measure of how far a site moved in the implementation process.

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 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 214 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 16%
Student > Master 26 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 9%
Other 15 7%
Other 39 18%
Unknown 40 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 21%
Social Sciences 35 16%
Psychology 29 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 50 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#4,309,554
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#793
of 1,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,181
of 240,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#15
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 240,118 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 58% of its contemporaries.