↓ Skip to main content

Explaining high and low performers in complex intervention trials: a new model based on diffusion of innovations theory

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, May 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Explaining high and low performers in complex intervention trials: a new model based on diffusion of innovations theory
Published in
Trials, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0755-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather McMullen, Chris Griffiths, Werner Leber, Trisha Greenhalgh

Abstract

Complex intervention trials may require health care organisations to implement new service models. In a recent cluster randomised controlled trial, some participating organisations achieved high recruitment, whereas others found it difficult to assimilate the intervention and were low recruiters. We sought to explain this variation and develop a model to inform organisational participation in future complex intervention trials. The trial included 40 general practices in a London borough with high HIV prevalence. The intervention was offering a rapid HIV test as part of the New Patient Health Check. The primary outcome was mean CD4 cell count at diagnosis. The process evaluation consisted of several hundred hours of ethnographic observation, 21 semi-structured interviews and analysis of routine documents (e.g., patient leaflets, clinical protocols) and trial documents (e.g., inclusion criteria, recruitment statistics). Qualitative data were analysed thematically using-and, where necessary, extending-Greenhalgh et al.'s model of diffusion of innovations. Narrative synthesis was used to prepare case studies of four practices representing maximum variety in clinicians' interest in HIV (assessed by level of serological testing prior to the trial) and performance in the trial (high vs. low recruiters). High-recruiting practices were, in general though not invariably, also innovative ppractices. They were characterised by strong leadership, good managerial relations, readiness for change, a culture of staff training and available staff time ('slack resources'). Their front-line staff believed that patients might benefit from the rapid HIV test ('relative advantage'), were emotionally comfortable administering it ('compatibility'), skilled in performing it ('task issues') and made creative adaptations to embed the test in local working practices ('reinvention'). Early experience of a positive HIV test ('observability') appeared to reinforce staff commitment to recruiting more participants. Low-performing practices typically had less good managerial relations significant resource constraints, staff discomfort with the test and no positive results early in the trial. An adaptation of the diffusion of innovations model was an effective analytical tool for retrospectively explaining high- and low-performing practices in a complex intervention research trial. Whether the model will work prospectively to predict performance (and hence shape the design of future trials) is unknown. ISRCTN Registry number: ISRCTN63473710 . Date assigned: 22 April 2010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 189 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 16%
Student > Master 24 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Student > Bachelor 10 5%
Other 38 19%
Unknown 48 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 25%
Social Sciences 28 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 7%
Psychology 10 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 54 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 19 June 2015.
All research outputs
#1,982,464
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#45
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,235
of 282,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#5
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 282,683 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 91% 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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.