↓ Skip to main content

Getting messier with TIDieR: embracing context and complexity in intervention reporting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
99 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 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
Getting messier with TIDieR: embracing context and complexity in intervention reporting
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0461-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Cotterill, Sarah Knowles, Anne-Marie Martindale, Rebecca Elvey, Susan Howard, Nia Coupe, Paul Wilson, Michael Spence

Abstract

The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide was developed by an international team of experts to promote full and accurate description of trial interventions. It is now widely used in health research. The aim of this paper is to describe the experience of using TIDieR outside of trials, in a range of applied health research contexts, and make recommendations on its usefulness in such settings. We used the TIDieR template for intervention description in six applied health research projects. The six cases comprise a diverse sample in terms of clinical problems, population, settings, stage of intervention development and whether the intervention was led by researchers or the service deliverers. There was also variation in how the TIDieR description was produced in terms of contributors and time point in the project. Researchers involved in the six cases met in two workshops to identify issues and themes arising from their experience of using TIDieR. We identified four themes which capture the difficulties or complexities of using TIDieR in applied health research: (i) fidelity and adaptation: all aspects of an intervention can change over time; (ii) voice: the importance of clarity on whose voice the TIDieR description represents; (iii) communication beyond the immediate context: the usefulness of TIDieR for wider dissemination and sharing; (iv) the use of TIDieR as a research tool. We found TIDieR to be a useful tool for applied research outside the context of clinical trials and we suggest four revisions or additions to the original TIDieR which would enable it to better capture these complexities in applied health research: An additional item, 'voice' conveys who was involved in preparing the TIDieR template, such as researchers, service users or service deliverers. An additional item, 'stage of implementation' conveys what stage the intervention has reached, using a continuum of implementation research suggested by the World Health Organisation. A new column, 'modification' reminds authors to describe modifications to any item in the checklist. An extension of the 'how well' item encourages researchers to describe how contextual factors affected intervention delivery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 99 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 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 179 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 21%
Student > Master 35 20%
Researcher 21 12%
Other 7 4%
Student > Postgraduate 7 4%
Other 41 23%
Unknown 31 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 14%
Social Sciences 18 10%
Computer Science 6 3%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 41 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 27 April 2021.
All research outputs
#770,376
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#62
of 2,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,019
of 451,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,282 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 451,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.