↓ Skip to main content

Integrated solutions for sustainable fall prevention in primary care, the iSOLVE project: a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2017
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 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
Integrated solutions for sustainable fall prevention in primary care, the iSOLVE project: a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0529-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindy Clemson, Lynette Mackenzie, Chris Roberts, Roslyn Poulos, Amy Tan, Meryl Lovarini, Cathie Sherrington, Judy M. Simpson, Karen Willis, Mary Lam, Anne Tiedemann, Dimity Pond, David Peiris, Sarah Hilmer, Sabrina Winona Pit, Kirsten Howard, Lorraine Lovitt, Fiona White

Abstract

Despite strong evidence giving guidance for effective fall prevention interventions in community-residing older people, there is currently no clear model for engaging general medical practitioners in fall prevention and routine use of allied health professionals in fall prevention has been slow, limiting widespread dissemination. This protocol paper outlines an implementation-effectiveness study of the Integrated Solutions for Sustainable Fall Prevention (iSOLVE) intervention which has developed integrated processes and pathways to identify older people at risk of falls and engage a whole of primary care approach to fall prevention. This protocol paper presents the iSOLVE implementation processes and change strategies and outlines the study design of a blended type 2 hybrid design. The study consists of a two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial in 28 general practices and recruiting 560 patients in Sydney, Australia, to evaluate effectiveness of the iSOLVE intervention in changing general practitioner fall management practices and reducing patient falls and the cost effectiveness from a healthcare funder perspective. Secondary outcomes include change in medications known to increase fall risk. We will simultaneously conduct a multi-methodology evaluation to investigate the workability and utility of the implementation intervention. The implementation evaluation includes in-depth interviews and surveys with general practitioners and allied health professionals to explore acceptability and uptake of the intervention, the coherence of the proposed changes for those in the work setting, and how to facilitate the collective action needed to implement changes in practice; social network mapping will explore professional relationships and influences on referral patterns; and, a survey of GPs in the geographical intervention zone will test diffusion of evidence-based fall prevention practices. The project works in partnership with a primary care health network, state fall prevention leaders, and a community of practice of fall prevention advocates. The design is aimed at providing clear direction for sustainability and informing decisions about generalization of the iSOLVE intervention processes and change strategies. While challenges exist in hybrid designs, there is a potential for significant outcomes as the iSOLVE pathways project brings together practice and research to collectively solve a major national problem with implications for policy service delivery. Australian New Zealand Clinial Trials Registry ACTRN12615000401550.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 186 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 56 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 34 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 17%
Psychology 12 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 5%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 66 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 31 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,207,262
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#697
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,610
of 421,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#23
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 421,877 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 44 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 50% of its contemporaries.