↓ Skip to main content

Developing, delivering and evaluating primary mental health care: the co-production of a new complex intervention

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 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
Developing, delivering and evaluating primary mental health care: the co-production of a new complex intervention
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1726-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanne Reeve, Lucy Cooper, Sean Harrington, Peter Rosbottom, Jane Watkins

Abstract

Health services face the challenges created by complex problems, and so need complex intervention solutions. However they also experience ongoing difficulties in translating findings from research in this area in to quality improvement changes on the ground. BounceBack was a service development innovation project which sought to examine this issue through the implementation and evaluation in a primary care setting of a novel complex intervention. The project was a collaboration between a local mental health charity, an academic unit, and GP practices. The aim was to translate the charity's model of care into practice-based evidence describing delivery and impact. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to support the implementation of the new model of primary mental health care into six GP practices. An integrated process evaluation evaluated the process and impact of care. Implementation quickly stalled as we identified problems with the described model of care when applied in a changing and variable primary care context. The team therefore switched to using the NPT framework to support the systematic identification and modification of the components of the complex intervention: including the core components that made it distinct (the consultation approach) and the variable components (organisational issues) that made it work in practice. The extra work significantly reduced the time available for outcome evaluation. However findings demonstrated moderately successful implementation of the model and a suggestion of hypothesised changes in outcomes. The BounceBack project demonstrates the development of a complex intervention from practice. It highlights the use of Normalisation Process Theory to support development, and not just implementation, of a complex intervention; and describes the use of the research process in the generation of practice-based evidence. Implications for future translational complex intervention research supporting practice change through scholarship are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 157 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 40 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Psychology 22 14%
Social Sciences 20 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 45 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 April 2022.
All research outputs
#5,877,602
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,546
of 7,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,612
of 336,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#81
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 336,700 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 227 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.