↓ Skip to main content

Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, September 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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 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
Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0325-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janet E. Squires, Ian D. Graham, Alison M. Hutchinson, Susan Michie, Jill J. Francis, Anne Sales, Jamie Brehaut, Janet Curran, Noah Ivers, John Lavis, Stefanie Linklater, Shannon Fenton, Thomas Noseworthy, Jocelyn Vine, Jeremy M. Grimshaw

Abstract

There is growing recognition that "context" can and does modify the effects of implementation interventions aimed at increasing healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what exactly comprises "context" is lacking. The purpose of this research program is to develop, refine, and validate a framework that identifies the key domains of context (and their features) that can facilitate or hinder (1) healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice and (2) the effectiveness of implementation interventions. A multi-phased investigation of context using mixed methods will be conducted. The first phase is a concept analysis of context using the Walker and Avant method to distinguish between the defining and irrelevant attributes of context. This phase will result in a preliminary framework for context that identifies its important domains and their features according to the published literature. The second phase is a secondary analysis of qualitative data from 13 studies of interviews with 312 healthcare professionals on the perceived barriers and enablers to their application of research evidence in clinical practice. These data will be analyzed inductively using constant comparative analysis. For the third phase, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with key health system stakeholders and change agents to elicit their knowledge and beliefs about the contextual features that influence the effectiveness of implementation interventions and healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice. Results from all three phases will be synthesized using a triangulation protocol to refine the context framework drawn from the concept analysis. The framework will then be assessed for content validity using an iterative Delphi approach with international experts (researchers and health system stakeholders/change agents). This research program will result in a framework that identifies the domains of context and their features that can facilitate or hinder: (1) healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice and (2) the effectiveness of implementation interventions. The framework will increase the conceptual clarity of the term "context" for advancing implementation science, improving healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice, and providing greater understanding of what interventions are likely to be effective in which contexts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 218 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 16%
Student > Master 35 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 8%
Other 14 6%
Other 46 20%
Unknown 46 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 20%
Social Sciences 28 12%
Psychology 17 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 2%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 51 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,872,458
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#585
of 1,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,685
of 289,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#17
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 289,148 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.