↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of a nurse-led behaviour change intervention to support medication taking in type 2 diabetes: beyond hypothesised active ingredients (SAMS Consultation Study)

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 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
Implementation of a nurse-led behaviour change intervention to support medication taking in type 2 diabetes: beyond hypothesised active ingredients (SAMS Consultation Study)
Published in
Implementation Science, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-9-70
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hardeman W, Lamming L, Kellar I, De Simoni A, Graffy J, Boase S, Sutton S, Farmer A, Kinmonth AL, Wendy Hardeman, Laura Lamming, Ian Kellar, Anna De Simoni, Jonathan Graffy, Sue Boase, Stephen Sutton, Andrew Farmer, Ann Louise Kinmonth

Abstract

Implementation of trial interventions is rarely assessed, despite its effects on findings. We assessed the implementation of a nurse-led intervention to facilitate medication adherence in type 2 diabetes (SAMS) in a trial against standard care in general practice. The intervention increased adherence, but not through the hypothesised psychological mechanism. This study aimed to develop a reliable coding frame for tape-recorded consultations, assessing both a priori hypothesised and potential active ingredients observed during implementation, and to describe the delivery and receipt of intervention and standard care components to understand how the intervention might have worked.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 140 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 18%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 10%
Researcher 12 8%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 19 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 18%
Psychology 20 14%
Social Sciences 14 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 6%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 26 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 June 2014.
All research outputs
#3,702,077
of 14,546,169 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#856
of 1,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,954
of 188,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#14
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,546,169 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 1,437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 188,585 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.