| Title |
Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Medical Journal, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmj.i6795 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hilary Pinnock, Melanie Barwick, Christopher R Carpenter, Sandra Eldridge, Gonzalo Grandes, Chris J Griffiths, Jo Rycroft-Malone, Paul Meissner, Elizabeth Murray, Anita Patel, Aziz Sheikh, Stephanie J C Taylor |
| Abstract |
Implementation studies are often poorly reported and indexed, reducing their potential to inform initiatives to improve healthcare services. The Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) initiative aimed to develop guidelines for transparent and accurate reporting of implementation studies. Informed by the findings of a systematic review and a consensus-building e-Delphi exercise, an international working group of implementation science experts discussed and agreed the StaRI Checklist comprising 27 items. It prompts researchers to describe both the implementation strategy (techniques used to promote implementation of an underused evidence-based intervention) and the effectiveness of the intervention that was being implemented. An accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document (published in BMJ Open, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013318) details each of the items, explains the rationale, and provides examples of good reporting practice. Adoption of StaRI will improve the reporting of implementation studies, potentially facilitating translation of research into practice and improving the health of individuals and populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 467 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 94 | 20% |
| United States | 48 | 10% |
| Canada | 43 | 9% |
| Australia | 35 | 7% |
| Ireland | 12 | 3% |
| Spain | 10 | 2% |
| Denmark | 7 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 6 | 1% |
| France | 4 | <1% |
| Other | 52 | 11% |
| Unknown | 156 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 215 | 46% |
| Scientists | 174 | 37% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 62 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 16 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 696 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 693 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 123 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 94 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 80 | 11% |
| Other | 51 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 47 | 7% |
| Other | 129 | 19% |
| Unknown | 172 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 212 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 74 | 11% |
| Psychology | 61 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 49 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 11 | 2% |
| Other | 75 | 11% |
| Unknown | 214 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 292. 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 06 March 2024.
All research outputs
#122,019
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#1,863
of 64,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,828
of 325,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#26
of 860 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 64,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 325,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 860 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.