↓ Skip to main content

Supporting the implementation of stroke quality-based procedures (QBPs): a mixed methods evaluation to identify knowledge translation activities, knowledge translation interventions, and determinants…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Supporting the implementation of stroke quality-based procedures (QBPs): a mixed methods evaluation to identify knowledge translation activities, knowledge translation interventions, and determinants of implementation across Ontario
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3220-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia E. Moore, Christine Marquez, Kristen Dufresne, Charmalee Harris, Jamie Park, Radha Sayal, Monika Kastner, Linda Kelloway, Sarah E. P. Munce, Mark Bayley, Matthew Meyer, Sharon E. Straus

Abstract

In 2013, Health Quality Ontario introduced stroke quality-based procedures (QBPs) to promote use of evidence-based practices for patients with stroke in Ontario hospitals. The study purpose was to: (a) describe the knowledge translation (KT) interventions used to support stroke QBP implementation, (b) assess differences in the planned and reported KT interventions by region, and (c) explore determinants perceived to have affected outcomes. A mixed methods approach was used to evaluate: activities, KT interventions, and determinants of stroke QBP implementation. In Phase 1, a document review of regional stroke network work plans was conducted to capture the types of KT activities planned at a regional level; these were mapped to the knowledge to action framework. In Phase 2, we surveyed Ontario hospital staff to identify the KT interventions used to support QBP implementation at an organizational level. Phase 3 involved qualitative interviews with staff to elucidate deeper understanding of survey findings. Of the 446 activities identified in the document review, the most common were 'dissemination' (24.2%; n = 108), 'implementation' (22.6%; n = 101), 'implementation planning' (15.0%; n = 67), and 'knowledge tools' (10.5%; n = 47). Based on survey data (n = 489), commonly reported KT interventions included: staff educational meetings (43.1%; n = 154), champions (41.5%; n = 148), and staff educational materials (40.6%; n = 145). Survey participants perceived stroke QBP implementation to be successful (median = 5/7; interquartile range = 4-6; range = 1-7; n = 335). Forty-four people (e.g., managers, senior leaders, regional stroke network representatives, and frontline staff) participated in interviews/focus groups. Perceived facilitators to QBP implementation included networks and collaborations with external organizations, leadership engagement, and hospital prioritization of stroke QBP. Perceived barriers included lack of funding, size of the hospital (i.e., too small), lack of resources (i.e., staff and time), and simultaneous implementation of other QBPs. Information on the types of activities and KT interventions used to support stroke QBP implementation and the key determinants influencing uptake of stroke QBPs can be used to inform future activities including the development and evaluation of interventions to address barriers and leverage facilitators.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Researcher 6 15%
Other 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 18%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Psychology 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 9 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 November 2018.
All research outputs
#8,277,542
of 13,726,653 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,116
of 4,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,618
of 268,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,726,653 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,605 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 268,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them