↓ Skip to main content

Classifying the Effectiveness of Veterans Affairs Guideline Implementation Approaches

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Medical Quality, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
30 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.
Article details
Title
Classifying the Effectiveness of Veterans Affairs Guideline Implementation Approaches
Published in
American Journal of Medical Quality, September 2016
DOI 10.1177/106286060401900604
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Hospitals use numerous guideline implementation approaches with varying success. Approaches have been classified as consistently, variably, or minimally effective, with multiple approaches being most effective. This project assesses the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) use of effective guideline implementation approaches. A survey of 123 VA quality managers assessed the approaches used to implement the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, and major depressive disorder guidelines. Approaches were categorized based on their effectiveness, and the total number of approaches used was calculated. Commonly used approaches were clinical meetings, summaries, and revised forms. Consistently and minimally effective approaches were used most frequently. Most hospitals used 4-7 approaches. Odds ratios demonstrated that consistently effective approaches were paired with minimally and variably effective approaches. The frequent use of consistently effective approaches and multiple approaches benefits VA adherence. However, VA hospitals should consider selective combinations of approaches to ensure the use of the most effective implementation methods.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 40%
Psychology 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 12 40%
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 01 January 2011.
All research outputs
#8,842,575
of 26,245,199 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Medical Quality
#285
of 917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,814
of 344,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Medical Quality
#23
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,245,199 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 344,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.