↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation Framework for Translational Research

Overview of attention for article published in Health Promotion Practice, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Evaluation Framework for Translational Research
Published in
Health Promotion Practice, September 2012
DOI 10.1177/1524839912456024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Blythe J. O’Hara, Adrian E. Bauman, Elizabeth G. Eakin, Lesley King, Marion Haas, Margaret Allman-Farinelli, Neville Owen, Magnolia Cardona-Morell, Louise Farrell, Andrew J. Milat, Philayrath Phongsavan

Abstract

The Get Healthy Information and Coaching Service® (GHS), a free government-funded telephone-delivered information and coaching service was launched in February 2009 by the Australian New South Wales state government. It represents the translation of research evidence applied in the real world (T4 or Phase 4 translation), aimed at addressing the modifiable risk factors associated with the overweight and obesity. In controlled settings, it has been established that telephone-based lifestyle counseling programs are efficacious in reducing anthropometric and behavioral risk factors. This article presents the GHS case study as a population-wide intervention and describes the quasi-experimental evaluation framework used to evaluate both the process (statewide implementation) and impact (effectiveness) of the GHS in a real-world environment. It details the data collection, measures, and statistical analysis required in assessing the process of implementation-reach and recruitment, marketing and promotion, service satisfaction, intervention fidelity, and GHS setting up and operations costs-and in assessing the impact of GHS-increasing physical activity, improving dietary practices, and reducing body weight and waist circumference. The comprehensive evaluation framework designed for the GHS provides a method for building effectiveness evidence of a rare translation of efficacy trial evidence into population-wide practice.

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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Taiwan 1 1%
Unknown 66 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 28%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Psychology 7 10%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Sports and Recreations 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2012.
All research outputs
#14,151,132
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Health Promotion Practice
#973
of 1,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,497
of 168,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Promotion Practice
#20
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 168,685 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.