↓ Skip to main content

Providers' Perspectives on Case Management of a Healthy Start Program: A Qualitative Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2016
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
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Providers' Perspectives on Case Management of a Healthy Start Program: A Qualitative Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0154668
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Although Healthy Start case managers recognized the benefits of case management for facilitating optimal service delivery to women and their families, structural factors impact effective implementation. This study investigated case managers' views of 1) the structural challenges faced in implementing case management for program participants, and 2) possible strategies to enhance case management in medical home settings. Two focus groups were conducted separately with case managers from the four program service sites to gain insight into these issues noted above. Each group was co-facilitated by two evaluators using a previously developed semi-structured interview guide. The group discussions were audio recorded and the case managers' comments were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis, a deductive approach. Data were collected in 2013 and analyzed in 2015. Case managers are challenged by externalities (demographic shifts in target populations, poverty); contractual requirements (predefined catchment neighborhoods, caseload); limited support (client incentives, tailored training, and a high staff turnover rate); and logistic difficulties (organizational issues). Their approach to case management tends to be focused on linking Although Healthy Start case managers recognized the benefits of case management for facilitating optimal service delivery to women and their families, structural factors impact effective implementation. This study investigated case managers' views of 1) the structural challenges faced in implementing case management for program participants, and 2) possible strategies to enhance case management in medical home settings. Two focus groups were conducted separately with case managers from the four program service sites to gain insight into these issues noted above. Each group was co-facilitated by two evaluators using a previously developed semi-structured interview guide. The group discussions were audio recorded and the case managers' comments were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis, a deductive approach. Data were collected in 2013 and analyzed in 2015. Case managers are challenged by externalities (demographic shifts in target populations, poverty); contractual requirements (predefined catchment neighborhoods, caseload); limited support (client incentives, tailored training, and a high staff turnover rate); and logistic difficulties (organizational issues). Their approach to case management tends to be focused on linking clients to adequate services rather than reporting performance. Case managers favored measurable deliverables rather than operational work products. A proposed solution to current challenges emphasizes and encourages the iterative learning process and shared decision making between program targets, funders and providers. Case managers are aware of the challenging environment in which they operate for their clients and for themselves. However, future interventions will require clearly identified performance measures and increased systems support.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 9 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 20 36%
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 08 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,468,145
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#107,709
of 195,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,338
of 298,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,498
of 4,931 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,069 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 298,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,931 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.