| Title |
A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Byron J Powell, Thomas J Waltz, Matthew J Chinman, Laura J Damschroder, Jeffrey L Smith, Monica M Matthieu, Enola K Proctor, JoAnn E Kirchner |
| Abstract |
Identifying, developing, and testing implementation strategies are important goals of implementation science. However, these efforts have been complicated by the use of inconsistent language and inadequate descriptions of implementation strategies in the literature. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aimed to refine a published compilation of implementation strategy terms and definitions by systematically gathering input from a wide range of stakeholders with expertise in implementation science and clinical practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation and clinical practice who engaged in three rounds of a modified Delphi process to generate consensus on implementation strategies and definitions. The first and second rounds involved Web-based surveys soliciting comments on implementation strategy terms and definitions. After each round, iterative refinements were made based upon participant feedback. The third round involved a live polling and consensus process via a Web-based platform and conference call. Participants identified substantial concerns with 31% of the terms and/or definitions and suggested five additional strategies. Seventy-five percent of definitions from the originally published compilation of strategies were retained after voting. Ultimately, the expert panel reached consensus on a final compilation of 73 implementation strategies. This research advances the field by improving the conceptual clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness of implementation strategies that can be used in isolation or combination in implementation research and practice. Future phases of ERIC will focus on developing conceptually distinct categories of strategies as well as ratings for each strategy's importance and feasibility. Next, the expert panel will recommend multifaceted strategies for hypothetical yet real-world scenarios that vary by sites' endorsement of evidence-based programs and practices and the strength of contextual supports that surround the effort. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 107 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 States | 32 | 30% |
| United Kingdom | 17 | 16% |
| Australia | 9 | 8% |
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| Ireland | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Cyprus | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 37 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 49 | 46% |
| Scientists | 44 | 41% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,958 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1944 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 305 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 268 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 243 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 144 | 7% |
| Other | 113 | 6% |
| Other | 357 | 18% |
| Unknown | 528 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 370 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 259 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 206 | 11% |
| Psychology | 195 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 41 | 2% |
| Other | 245 | 13% |
| Unknown | 642 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 135. 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 2024.
All research outputs
#313,668
of 25,802,847 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#14
of 1,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,871
of 369,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#1
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,802,847 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,822 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 369,654 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.