↓ Skip to main content

Enhancing evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease control among local health departments: a multi-phase dissemination study with a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial component

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Enhancing evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease control among local health departments: a multi-phase dissemination study with a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial component
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0650-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renee G. Parks, Rachel G. Tabak, Peg Allen, Elizabeth A. Baker, Katherine A. Stamatakis, Allison R. Poehler, Yan Yan, Marshall H. Chin, Jenine K. Harris, Maureen Dobbins, Ross C. Brownson

Abstract

The rates of diabetes and prediabetes in the USA are growing, significantly impacting the quality and length of life of those diagnosed and financially burdening society. Premature death and disability can be prevented through implementation of evidence-based programs and policies (EBPPs). Local health departments (LHDs) are uniquely positioned to implement diabetes control EBPPs because of their knowledge of, and focus on, community-level needs, contexts, and resources. There is a significant gap, however, between known diabetes control EBPPs and actual diabetes control activities conducted by LHDs. The purpose of this study is to determine how best to support the use of evidence-based public health for diabetes (and related chronic diseases) control among local-level public health practitioners. This paper describes the methods for a two-phase study with a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial that will evaluate dissemination strategies to increase the uptake of public health knowledge and EBPPs for diabetes control among LHDs. Phase 1 includes development of measures to assess practitioner views on and organizational supports for evidence-based public health, data collection using a national online survey of LHD chronic disease practitioners, and a needs assessment of factors influencing the uptake of diabetes control EBPPs among LHDs within one state in the USA. Phase 2 involves conducting a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial to assess effectiveness of dissemination strategies with local-level practitioners at LHDs to enhance capacity and organizational support for evidence-based diabetes prevention and control. Twelve LHDs will be selected and randomly assigned to one of the three groups that cross over from usual practice to receive the intervention (dissemination) strategies at 8-month intervals; the intervention duration for groups ranges from 8 to 24 months. Intervention (dissemination) strategies may include multi-day in-person workshops, electronic information exchange methods, technical assistance through a knowledge broker, and organizational changes to support evidence-based public health approaches. Evaluation methods comprise surveys at baseline and the three crossover time points, abstraction of local-level diabetes and chronic disease control program plans and progress reports, and social network analysis to understand the relationships and contextual issues that influence EBPP adoption. ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03211832.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 7 6%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 42 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 19%
Social Sciences 18 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 51 43%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,438,306
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,110
of 1,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,113
of 327,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#29
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 327,016 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.