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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Interventions for sustained healthcare professional behaviour change: a protocol for an overview of reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0355-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephan U. Dombrowski, Pauline Campbell, Helen Frost, Alex Pollock, Julie McLellan, Steve MacGillivray, Anna Gavine, Margaret Maxwell, Ronan O’Carroll, Helen Cheyne, Justin Presseau, Brian Williams |
| Abstract |
Failure to successfully implement and sustain change over the long term continues to be a major problem in health and social care. Translating evidence into routine clinical practice is notoriously complex, and it is recognised that to implement new evidence-based interventions and sustain them over time, professional behaviour needs to change accordingly. A number of theories and frameworks have been developed to support behaviour change among health and social care professionals, and models of sustainability are emerging, but few have translated into valid and reliable interventions. The long-term success of healthcare professional behavioural change interventions is variable, and the characteristics of successful interventions unclear. Previous reviews have synthesised the evidence for behaviour change, but none have focused on sustainability. In addition, multiple overlapping reviews have reported inconsistent results, which do not aid translation of evidence into practice. Overviews of reviews can provide accessible succinct summaries of evidence and address barriers to evidence-based practice. We aim to compile an overview of reviews, identifying, appraising and synthesising evidence relating to sustained social and healthcare professional behaviour change. We will conduct a systematic review of Cochrane reviews (an Overview). We plan to systematically search the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We will include all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials comparing a healthcare professional targeted behaviour change intervention to a standard care or no intervention control group. Two reviewers will independently assess the eligibility of the reviews and the methodological quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool. The quality of evidence within each comparison in each review will be judged based on the GRADE criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion. Effects of interventions will be systematically tabulated and the quality of evidence used to determine implications for clinical practice and make recommendations for future research. This overview will bring together the best available evidence relating to the sustainability of health professional behaviour change, thus supporting policy makers with decision-making in this field. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 3 | 38% |
| Guinea | 1 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 63% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 16% |
| Psychology | 10 | 14% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 21 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 03 June 2019.
All research outputs
#4,184,001
of 24,989,834 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#787
of 2,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,135
of 326,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#18
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,989,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 326,435 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 60% of its contemporaries.