↓ Skip to main content

The CHARMS pilot study: a multi-method assessment of the feasibility of a sexual counselling implementation intervention in cardiac rehabilitation in Ireland

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2018
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The CHARMS pilot study: a multi-method assessment of the feasibility of a sexual counselling implementation intervention in cardiac rehabilitation in Ireland
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40814-018-0278-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick J. Murphy, Chris Noone, Maureen D’Eath, Dympna Casey, Sally Doherty, Tiny Jaarsma, Andrew W. Murphy, Martin O’Donnell, Noeleen Fallon, Paddy Gillespie, Amirhossein Jalali, Jenny Mc Sharry, John Newell, Elaine Toomey, Elaine E. Steinke, Molly Byrne

Abstract

Many people living with cardiovascular disease (CVD) are affected by sexual problems associated with the condition. International guidelines recommend all patients with CVD should receive sexual counselling, yet this is rarely provided by health professionals. The current study piloted the Cardiac Health and Relationship Management and Sexuality (CHARMS) intervention, a complex multi-level intervention designed to increase the implementation of sexual counselling guidelines in hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in Ireland. The CHARMS intervention, consisting of awareness training and skills development for staff, and education and support for patients, was implemented in two CR centres. Following a repeated measures design, quantitative and qualitative feasibility, fidelity, cost, and outcome data were collected from staff and patients at baseline (T1, pre-intervention), at 3 months post-baseline (T2, post-intervention), and at 6 months post-baseline (T3, post-intervention). Data were organised according to a 14-point reporting framework of methodological issues that should be examined in pilot and feasibility studies. To inform a future definitive trial, potential solutions to identified feasibility issues were generated using the ADePT process for decision-making after pilot and feasibility trials. Most elements of the study protocol were executed smoothly, and intervention implementation was successful. Patients' (N = 42) responses to the intervention were positive. The reporting framework and the ADePT process facilitated the identification of two overarching feasibility problems, as well as solutions to be implemented in a definitive trial: (1) a high level of patient attrition in the pilot study, to be addressed through the use of financial incentives, reducing the length of the patient questionnaire, and providing a telephone survey option; and (2) negative staff perceptions, to be addressed through an augmented staff intervention, reframing 'sexual counselling' as 'sexual education and support' to fit with professional role perceptions, and reviewing all intervention terminology with a CR staff member to ensure acceptability. This article reports the successful piloting of a novel sexual counselling implementation intervention in cardiac rehabilitation. The utilisation of an extended reporting framework and the ADePT process facilitated the identification of adaptations necessary to ensure the feasibility of a definitive trial, thereby maximising methodological transparency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 37 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Psychology 7 10%
Chemistry 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 39 56%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 29 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,370,494
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#118
of 1,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,648
of 334,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#8
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 334,445 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.