↓ Skip to main content

Facilitating large-scale implementation of evidence based health care: insider accounts from a co-operative inquiry

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
Facilitating large-scale implementation of evidence based health care: insider accounts from a co-operative inquiry
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0722-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather Waterman, Ruth Boaden, Lorraine Burey, Brook Howells, Gill Harvey, John Humphreys, Katy Rothwell, Michael Spence

Abstract

Facilitators are known to be influential in the implementation of evidence-based health care (EBHC). However, little evidence exists on what it is that they do to support the implementation process. This research reports on how knowledge transfer associates (KTAs) working as part of the UK National Institute for Health Research 'Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care' for Greater Manchester (GM CLAHRC) facilitated the implementation of EBHC across several commissioning and provider health care agencies. A prospective co-operative inquiry with eight KTAs was carried out comprising of 11 regular group meetings where they reflected critically on their experiences. Twenty interviews were also conducted with other members of the GM CLAHRC Implementation Team to gain their perspectives of the KTAs facilitation role and process. There were four phases to the facilitation of EBHC on a large scale: (1) Assisting with the decision on what EBHC to implement, in this phase, KTAs pulled together people and disparate strands of information to facilitate a decision on which EBHC should be implemented; (2) Planning of the implementation of EBHC, in which KTAs spent time gathering additional information and going between key people to plan the implementation; (3) Coordinating and implementing EBHC when KTAs recruited general practices and people for the implementation of EBHC; and (4) Evaluating the EBHC which required the KTAs to set up (new) systems to gather data for analysis. Over time, the KTAs demonstrated growing confidence and skills in aspects of facilitation: research, interpersonal communication, project management and change management skills. The findings provide prospective empirical data on the large scale implementation of EBHC in primary care and community based organisations focusing on resources and processes involved. Detailed evidence shows facilitation is context dependent and that 'one size does not fits all'. Co-operative inquiry was a useful method to enhance KTAs learning. The evidence shows that facilitators need tailored support and education, during the process of implementation to provide them with a well-rounded skill-set. Our study was not designed to demonstrate how facilitators contribute to patient health outcomes thus further prospective research is required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 104 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Master 12 11%
Researcher 11 10%
Other 5 5%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 38 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 40 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,754,724
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,284
of 7,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,890
of 358,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#58
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,630 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 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 358,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.