| Title |
Implementation of a nurse-led behaviour change intervention to support medication taking in type 2 diabetes: beyond hypothesised active ingredients (SAMS Consultation Study)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-9-70 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wendy Hardeman, Laura Lamming, Ian Kellar, Anna De Simoni, Jonathan Graffy, Sue Boase, Stephen Sutton, Andrew Farmer, Ann Louise Kinmonth |
| Abstract |
Implementation of trial interventions is rarely assessed, despite its effects on findings. We assessed the implementation of a nurse-led intervention to facilitate medication adherence in type 2 diabetes (SAMS) in a trial against standard care in general practice. The intervention increased adherence, but not through the hypothesised psychological mechanism. This study aimed to develop a reliable coding frame for tape-recorded consultations, assessing both a priori hypothesised and potential active ingredients observed during implementation, and to describe the delivery and receipt of intervention and standard care components to understand how the intervention might have worked. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 4 | 44% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 188 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 37 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 12% |
| Researcher | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 32 | 17% |
| Unknown | 45 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 20% |
| Psychology | 21 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Unknown | 53 | 28% |
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 13 June 2014.
All research outputs
#6,875,825
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,083
of 1,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,132
of 242,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#22
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 242,149 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.