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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Leading for the long haul: a mixed-method evaluation of the Sustainment Leadership Scale (SLS)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-018-0710-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark G. Ehrhart, Elisa M. Torres, Amy E. Green, Elise M. Trott, Cathleen E. Willging, Joanna C. Moullin, Gregory A. Aarons |
| Abstract |
Despite our progress in understanding the organizational context for implementation and specifically the role of leadership in implementation, its role in sustainment has received little attention. This paper took a mixed-method approach to examine leadership during the sustainment phase of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Utilizing the Implementation Leadership Scale as a foundation, we sought to develop a short, practical measure of sustainment leadership that can be used for both applied and research purposes. Data for this study were collected as a part of a larger mixed-method study of evidence-based intervention, SafeCare®, sustainment. Quantitative data were collected from 157 providers using web-based surveys. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the factor structure of the Sustainment Leadership Scale (SLS). Qualitative data were collected from 95 providers who participated in one of 15 focus groups. A framework approach guided qualitative data analysis. Mixed-method integration was also utilized to examine convergence of quantitative and qualitative findings. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the a priori higher order factor structure of the SLS with subscales indicating a single higher order sustainment leadership factor. The SLS demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability. Qualitative analyses offered support for the dimensions of sustainment leadership captured by the quantitative measure, in addition to uncovering a fifth possible factor, available leadership. This study found qualitative and quantitative support for the pragmatic SLS measure. The SLS can be used for assessing leadership of first-level leaders to understand how staff perceive leadership during sustainment and to suggest areas where leaders could direct more attention in order to increase the likelihood that EBIs are institutionalized into the normal functioning of the organization. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 32% |
| Canada | 2 | 7% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Senegal | 1 | 4% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 14 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 10 | 36% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 11 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,126,812
of 23,580,560 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#457
of 1,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,157
of 443,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#20
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,580,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,729 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 73% 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 443,654 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 88% 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 56% of its contemporaries.