↓ Skip to main content

Strengthening evaluation and implementation by specifying components of behaviour change interventions: a study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2011
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
169 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
365 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
Strengthening evaluation and implementation by specifying components of behaviour change interventions: a study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2011
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-6-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Michie, Charles Abraham, Martin P Eccles, Jill J Francis, Wendy Hardeman, Marie Johnston

Abstract

The importance of behaviour change in improving health is illustrated by the increasing investment by funding bodies in the development and evaluation of complex interventions to change population, patient, and practitioner behaviours. The development of effective interventions is hampered by the absence of a nomenclature to specify and report their content. This limits the possibility of replicating effective interventions, synthesising evidence, and understanding the causal mechanisms underlying behaviour change. In contrast, biomedical interventions are precisely specified (e.g., the pharmacological 'ingredients' of prescribed drugs, their dose and frequency of administration). For most complex interventions, the precise 'ingredients' are unknown; descriptions (e.g., 'behavioural counseling') can mean different things to different researchers or implementers. The lack of a method for specifying complex interventions undermines the precision of evidence syntheses of effectiveness, posing a problem for secondary, as well as primary, research.We aim to develop a reliable method of specifying intervention components ('techniques') aimed at changing behaviour.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 365 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 9 2%
Canada 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Malta 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 341 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 23%
Researcher 74 20%
Student > Master 47 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 8%
Student > Bachelor 21 6%
Other 81 22%
Unknown 27 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 94 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 75 21%
Social Sciences 60 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 7%
Computer Science 17 5%
Other 53 15%
Unknown 40 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 07 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,485,208
of 15,923,414 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#643
of 1,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,263
of 116,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#16
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,923,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 116,260 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.