| Title |
A qualitative exploration of the client experience of inter-professional practice in the delivery of ActivePlus: a combined smoking cessation and physical activity intervention
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-018-3004-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
G. A. O’Sullivan, Clare Hanlon, T. Dentry, T. Morris, L. Banting |
| Abstract |
Research investigating interprofessional practice (IPP) frameworks has predominately focused on the service delivery of IPP or educating practitioners through interprofessional education. Minimal research has addressed client outcomes or the experience of clients with IPP in real world contexts. In this paper, we explore the experience of seven participants in the ActivePlus program, an IPP-based smoking cessation intervention combined with physical activity promotion. Participants informed on their program experiences through post-program in-depth interviews. A thematic analysis drew out themes pertaining to participant experiences of the joint practice element of the IPP model of care. Analysis identified two major themes: the joint practice experience, and the client-centered approach of the IPP model of care. Participants reflected on the ways that having two health practitioners in joint sessions benefited their intervention experience, as well as providing some critical feedback. Participants also reported observing and valuing aspects of client-centered practice that strengthened the rapport within the practitioner-client team and aided their behaviour change progress. The client-centered practice was instrumental in overcoming initial teething issues with joint session delivery and alleviating pre-program participant concerns about being outnumbered by multiple practitioners. Despite some early teething issues, participants reported a positive acceptance of the IPP and joint session delivery model, which added value to the overall ActivePlus program. Results from this research can provide practitioners with a client perspective on the key aspects they perceive as important in IPP joint session delivery. Further investigation into the client perception in similar interventions is recommended with larger samples and non-clinical groups. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 16% |
| Psychology | 6 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 45% |
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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,780,251
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,691
of 7,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,124
of 332,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#67
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 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 7,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 332,402 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 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 68% of its contemporaries.