↓ Skip to main content

Theories, models and frameworks used in capacity building interventions relevant to public health: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
386 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
Theories, models and frameworks used in capacity building interventions relevant to public health: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4919-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim Bergeron, Samiya Abdi, Kara DeCorby, Gloria Mensah, Benjamin Rempel, Heather Manson

Abstract

There is limited research on capacity building interventions that include theoretical foundations. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify underlying theories, models and frameworks used to support capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice. The aim is to inform and improve capacity building practices and services offered by public health organizations. Four search strategies were used: 1) electronic database searching; 2) reference lists of included papers; 3) key informant consultation; and 4) grey literature searching. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined with included papers focusing on capacity building, learning plans, professional development plans in combination with tools, resources, processes, procedures, steps, model, framework, guideline, described in a public health or healthcare setting, or non-government, government, or community organizations as they relate to healthcare, and explicitly or implicitly mention a theory, model and/or framework that grounds the type of capacity building approach developed. Quality assessment were performed on all included articles. Data analysis included a process for synthesizing, analyzing and presenting descriptive summaries, categorizing theoretical foundations according to which theory, model and/or framework was used and whether or not the theory, model or framework was implied or explicitly identified. Nineteen articles were included in this review. A total of 28 theories, models and frameworks were identified. Of this number, two theories (Diffusion of Innovations and Transformational Learning), two models (Ecological and Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation) and one framework (Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning) were identified as the most frequently cited. This review identifies specific theories, models and frameworks to support capacity building interventions relevant to public health organizations. It provides public health practitioners with a menu of potentially usable theories, models and frameworks to support capacity building efforts. The findings also support the need for the use of theories, models or frameworks to be intentional, explicitly identified, referenced and for it to be clearly outlined how they were applied to the capacity building intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 386 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 386 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 11%
Researcher 39 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 7%
Student > Postgraduate 18 5%
Other 68 18%
Unknown 127 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 67 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 4%
Engineering 10 3%
Other 50 13%
Unknown 145 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 16 September 2023.
All research outputs
#3,287,500
of 25,490,562 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,059
of 17,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,324
of 447,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#60
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,490,562 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,636 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 447,355 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 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 67% of its contemporaries.