↓ Skip to main content

Sustaining knowledge translation interventions for chronic disease management in older adults: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, September 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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
Title
Sustaining knowledge translation interventions for chronic disease management in older adults: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0808-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea C. Tricco, Julia E. Moore, Nicole Beben, Ross C. Brownson, David A. Chambers, Lisa R. Dolovich, Annemarie Edwards, Lee Fairclough, Paul P. Glasziou, Ian D. Graham, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn, Bev Holmes, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Chantelle C. Lachance, France Legare, Jessie McGowan, Sumit R. Majumdar, Justin Presseau, Janet E. Squires, Henry T. Stelfox, Lisa Strifler, Kristine Thompson, Trudy Van der Weijden, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Sharon E. Straus

Abstract

Failure to sustain knowledge translation (KT) interventions impacts patients and health systems, diminishing confidence in future implementation. Sustaining KT interventions used to implement chronic disease management (CDM) interventions is of critical importance given the proportion of older adults with chronic diseases and their need for ongoing care. Our objectives are to (1) complete a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sustainability of KT interventions that target CDM for end-users including older patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers on health care outcomes beyond 1 year after implementation or the termination of initial project funding and (2) use the results of this review to complete an economic analysis of the interventions identified to be effective. For objective 1, comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), websites of health care provider organisations and funding agencies will be conducted. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the impact of a KT intervention targeting CDM in adults aged 65 years and older. To examine cost, economic studies (e.g. cost, cost-effectiveness analyses) will be included. Our primary outcome will be the sustainability of the delivery of the KT intervention beyond 1 year after implementation or termination of study funding. Secondary outcomes will include behaviour changes at the level of the patient (e.g. symptom management) and clinician (e.g. physician test ordering) and health system (e.g. cost, hospital admissions). Article screening, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment will be completed independently by two reviewers. Using established methods, if the assumption of transitivity is valid and the evidence forms a connected network, Bayesian random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis will be conducted. For objective 2, we will build a decision analytic model comparing effective interventions to estimate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Our results will inform knowledge users (e.g. patients, clinicians, policy-makers) regarding the sustainability of KT interventions for CDM. Dissemination plan of our results will be tailored to end-users and include passive (e.g. publications, website posting) and interactive (e.g. knowledge exchange events with stakeholders) strategies. PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Lecturer 5 4%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 55 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 12%
Psychology 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 59 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 04 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,220,777
of 24,803,011 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#368
of 2,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,493
of 343,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#12
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,803,011 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 343,084 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 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.