↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the impact of multilevel evidence-based implementation strategies to enhance provider recommendation on human papillomavirus vaccination rates among an empaneled primary care patient…

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
Title
Evaluating the impact of multilevel evidence-based implementation strategies to enhance provider recommendation on human papillomavirus vaccination rates among an empaneled primary care patient population: a study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0778-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lila J. Finney Rutten, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf, Jennifer L. St. Sauver, Ivana T. Croghan, Debra J. Jacobson, Patrick M. Wilson, Jeph Herrin, Robert M. Jacobson

Abstract

Each year, human papillomavirus (HPV) causes 30,000 cancers in the USA despite the availability of effective and safe vaccines. Uptake of HPV vaccine has been low and lags behind other adolescent vaccines. This protocol describes a multilevel intervention to improve HPV vaccination rates. Using a cluster randomized trial, we will evaluate the independent and combined impact of two evidence-based implementation strategies with innovative enhancements on HPV vaccination rates for female and male patients. The clusters are six primary care sites providing care to pediatric populations. We will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomized design, including process evaluation, to test the hypothesis that compared with the current course of care and a practice-level intervention using reminder-recall interventions coupled with provider-level audit and feedback with education increases HPV vaccination rates in exposed clusters. The factorial design allows us to use a single trial to test these two interventions and to assess each individually and in combination. Our design has four 12-month steps. The first step will be a baseline period; data collected during it will provide a within-practice control group for each cluster. Second, two clusters will be randomly assigned to receive intervention 1 (reminder and recall), and two clusters will be randomly selected to receive intervention 2 (audit and feedback with education). Third, the other two clusters will be randomly allocated to intervention 1 or 2. Clusters initially with intervention 1 will be randomly allocated to 1 + 2 or 1; clusters initially with intervention 2 will be randomly allocated to 1 + 2 or 2. Fourth, all clusters will receive both interventions. To ensure balance of patient numbers across interventions, we will use block randomization at the first step, with the six clusters grouped into three pairs according to volume. Our primary outcome will be vaccination rates. Results of our clinical trial and process evaluation will provide evidence showing whether practice- and provider-level interventions improve HPV vaccination rates and will offer insight into contextual factors associated with direction and magnitude of trial outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03501992 , registered April 18, 2018.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Researcher 7 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 44 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 13%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 49 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,043,199
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,327
of 1,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,190
of 327,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#42
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 327,048 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.