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 |
Process evaluation of a tailored intervention programme of cardiovascular risk management in general practices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-016-0526-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Huntink, M. Wensing, I. M. Timmers, J. van Lieshout |
| Abstract |
A tailored implementation programme to improve cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) in general practice had little impact on outcomes. The questions in this process evaluation concerned (1) impact on counselling skills and CVRM knowledge of practice nurses, (2) their use of the various components of the intervention programme and adoption of recommended practices and (3) patients' perceptions of counselling for CVRM. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted. We assessed practice nurses' motivational interviewing skills on audio-taped consultations using Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI). They also completed a clinical knowledge test. Both practice nurses and patients reported on their experiences in a written questionnaire and interviews. A multilevel regression analysis and an independent sample t test were used to examine motivational interviewing skills and CVRM knowledge. Framework analysis was applied to analyse qualitative data. Data from 34 general practices were available, 19 intervention practices and 14 control practices. No improvements were measured on motivational interviewing skills in both groups. There appeared to be better knowledge of CVRM in the control group. On average half of the practice nurses indicated that they adopted the recommended interventions, but stated that they did not necessarily record this in patients' medical files. The tailored programme was perceived as too large. Time, follow-up support and reminders were felt to be lacking. About 20% of patients in the intervention group visited the general practice during the intervention period, yet only a small number of these patients were referred to recommended options. The tailored programme was only partly used by practice nurses and had little impact on either their clinical knowledge and communication skills or on patient reported healthcare. If the assumed logical model of change is valid, a more intensive programme is needed to have an impact on CVRM in general practice at all. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 25% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 25% |
| Colombia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 86 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 30 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 15% |
| Psychology | 10 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 32 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 December 2016.
All research outputs
#13,146,525
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,368
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,098
of 420,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#28
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 420,880 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.