↓ Skip to main content

Improving the normalization of complex interventions: measure development based on normalization process theory (NoMAD): study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Improving the normalization of complex interventions: measure development based on normalization process theory (NoMAD): study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-43
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tracy L Finch, Tim Rapley, Melissa Girling, Frances S Mair, Elizabeth Murray, Shaun Treweek, Elaine McColl, Ian Nicholas Steen, Carl R May, Finch TL, Rapley T, Girling M, Mair FS, Murray E, Treweek S, McColl E, Steen IN, May CR

Abstract

Understanding implementation processes is key to ensuring that complex interventions in healthcare are taken up in practice and thus maximize intended benefits for service provision and (ultimately) care to patients. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) provides a framework for understanding how a new intervention becomes part of normal practice. This study aims to develop and validate simple generic tools derived from NPT, to be used to improve the implementation of complex healthcare interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 203 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 45 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 20%
Student > Master 30 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 12 6%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 29 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 26%
Social Sciences 38 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 13%
Psychology 18 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 5%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 39 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 January 2017.
All research outputs
#3,591,192
of 21,346,377 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#772
of 1,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,259
of 175,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,346,377 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 1,682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 175,138 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.