↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of secondary fracture prevention services after hip fracture: a qualitative study using extended Normalization Process Theory

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 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 secondary fracture prevention services after hip fracture: a qualitative study using extended Normalization Process Theory
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0243-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Drew, Andrew Judge, Carl May, Andrew Farmer, Cyrus Cooper, M Kassim Javaid, Rachael Gooberman-Hill, The REFReSH study group

Abstract

National and international guidance emphasizes the need for hospitals to have effective secondary fracture prevention services, to reduce the risk of future fractures in hip fracture patients. Variation exists in how hospitals organize these services, and there remain significant gaps in care. No research has systematically explored reasons for this to understand how to successfully implement these services. The objective of this study was to use extended Normalization Process Theory to understand how secondary fracture prevention services can be successfully implemented. Forty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals involved in delivering secondary fracture prevention within 11 hospitals that receive patients with acute hip fracture in one region in England. These included orthogeriatricians, fracture prevention nurses and service managers. Extended Normalization Process Theory was used to inform study design and analysis. Extended Normalization Process Theory specifies four constructs relating to collective action in service implementation: capacity, potential, capability and contribution. The capacity of healthcare professionals to co-operate and co-ordinate their actions was achieved using dedicated fracture prevention co-ordinators to organize important processes of care. However, participants described effective communication with GPs as challenging. Individual potential and commitment to operationalize services was generally high. Shared commitments were promoted through multi-disciplinary team working, facilitated by fracture prevention co-ordinators. Healthcare professionals had capacity to deliver multiple components of services when co-ordinators 'freed up' time. As key agents in its intervention, fracture prevention coordinators were therefore indispensable to effective implementation. Aside from difficulty of co-ordination with primary care, the intervention was highly workable and easily integrated into practice. Nevertheless, implementation was threatened by under-staffed and under-resourced services, lack of capacity to administer scans and poor patient access. To ensure ongoing service delivery, the contributions of healthcare professionals were shaped by planning, in multi-disciplinary team meetings, the use of clinical databases to identify patients and define the composition of clinical work and monitoring to improve clinical practice. Findings identify and describe elements needed to implement secondary fracture prevention services successfully. The study highlights the value of Normalization Process Theory to achieve comprehensive understanding of healthcare professionals' experiences in enacting a complex intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 153 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 17%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 37 24%
Unknown 38 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 15%
Social Sciences 14 9%
Psychology 10 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 45 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 April 2015.
All research outputs
#13,083,523
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,367
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,759
of 265,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#41
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 265,382 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.