↓ Skip to main content

Implementing measurement based care in community mental health: a description of tailored and standardized methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Implementing measurement based care in community mental health: a description of tailored and standardized methods
Published in
BMC Research Notes, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3193-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cara C. Lewis, Ajeng Puspitasari, Meredith R. Boyd, Kelli Scott, Brigid R. Marriott, Mira Hoffman, Elena Navarro, Hannah Kassab

Abstract

Although tailored implementation methods are touted as superior to standardized, few researchers have directly compared the two and little guidance regarding the specific details of each method exist. Our study compares these methods in a dynamic cluster randomized trial seeking to optimize implementation of measurement based care (MBC) for depression in community behavioral health. This specific manuscript provides a detailed, replicable account of the components of each multi-faceted implementation method. The standardized best practice method includes training, consultation, a clinical guideline, and electronic health record enhancements with the goal to optimize the delivery of MBC with fidelity. Conversely, the tailored, customized and collaborative method is informed by recent implementation science advancements and begins with a needs assessment, followed by tailored training that feeds back barriers data to clinicians, the formation of an implementation team, a clinician-driven clinic-specific guideline, and the use of fidelity data to inform implementation team activities; the goal of the tailored condition is to ensure the intervention and implementation strategies address unique factors of the context. The description of these methods will inform others seeking to implement MBC, as well as those planning to use standardized or tailored implementation methods for interventions beyond behavioral health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 23 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 24 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 November 2021.
All research outputs
#6,062,417
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#903
of 4,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,398
of 440,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#29
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 440,718 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.