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 |
Using NIATx strategies to implement integrated services in routine care: a study protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-018-3241-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James H. Ford, Eric L Osborne, Mehret T. Assefa, Amy M McIlvaine, Ahney M King, Kevin Campbell, Mark P McGovern |
| Abstract |
Access to integrated services for individuals with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders is a long-standing public health issue. Receiving integrated treatment services are both more effective and preferred by patients and families versus parallel or fragmented care. National policy statements and expert consensus guidelines underscore the benefits of integrated treatment. Despite decades of awareness, adequate treatment for individuals with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders occurs infrequently. The underlying disease burden associated with alcohol, illicit and prescription drug problems, as well as mental health disorders, such as depression, posttraumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia, is substantial. This cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) is designed to determine if the multi-component Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) strategies are effective in implementing integrated services for persons with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. In this study, 50 behavioral health programs in Washington State will be recruited and then randomized into one of two intervention arms: 1) NIATx implementation strategies, including coaching and learning sessions over a 12-month intervention period to implement changes targeting integrated treatment services; or 2) wait-list control. Primary outcome measures include: 1) fidelity - a standardized organizational assessment of integrated services (Dual Diagnosis in Addiction Treatment [DDCAT] Index); and 2) penetration - proportion of patients screened and diagnosed with co-occurring disorders, proportion of eligible patients receiving substance use and mental health services, and psychotropic or substance use disorder medications. Barriers and facilitators, as determinants of implementation outcomes, will be assessed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) Index. Fidelity to and participation in NIATx strategies will be assessed utilizing the NIATx Fidelity Scale and Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC). This study addresses an issue of substantial public health significance: the gap in access to an evidence-based practice for integrated treatment for individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. The study utilizes rigorous and reproducible quantitative approaches to measuring implementation determinants and strategies, and may address a longstanding gap in the quality of care for persons with co-occurring disorders. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03007940 . Registered 02 January 2017 - Retrospectively Registered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 135 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 11% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 19% |
| Unknown | 40 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 28 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Unknown | 48 | 36% |
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 30 November 2019.
All research outputs
#15,579,603
of 24,689,476 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,566
of 8,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,706
of 334,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#169
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,689,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,351 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 334,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 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.