↓ Skip to main content

Testing the organizational theory of innovation implementation effectiveness in a community pharmacy medication management program: a hurdle regression analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Testing the organizational theory of innovation implementation effectiveness in a community pharmacy medication management program: a hurdle regression analysis
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0799-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kea Turner, Justin G. Trogdon, Morris Weinberger, Angela M. Stover, Stefanie Ferreri, Joel F. Farley, Neepa Ray, Michael Patti, Chelsea Renfro, Christopher M. Shea

Abstract

Many state Medicaid programs are implementing pharmacist-led medication management programs to improve outcomes for high-risk beneficiaries. There are a limited number of studies examining implementation of these programs, making it difficult to assess why program outcomes might vary across organizations. To address this, we tested the applicability of the organizational theory of innovation implementation effectiveness to examine implementation of a community pharmacy Medicaid medication management program. We used a hurdle regression model to examine whether organizational determinants, such as implementation climate and innovation-values fit, were associated with effective implementation. We defined effective implementation in two ways: implementation versus non-implementation and program reach (i.e., the proportion of the target population that received the intervention). Data sources included an implementation survey administered to participating community pharmacies and administrative data. The findings suggest that implementation climate is positively and significantly associated with implementation versus non-implementation (AME = 2.65, p < 0.001) and with program reach (AME = 5.05, p = 0.001). Similarly, the results suggest that innovation-values fit is positively and significantly associated with implementation (AME = 2.17, p = 0.037) and program reach (AME = 11.79, p < 0.001). Some structural characteristics, such as having a clinical pharmacist on staff, were significant predictors of implementation and program reach whereas other characteristics, such as pharmacy type or prescription volume, were not. Our study supported the use of the organizational theory of innovation implementation effectiveness to identify organizational determinants that are associated with effective implementation (e.g., implementation climate and innovation-values fit). Unlike broader environmental factors or structural characteristics (e.g., pharmacy type), implementation climate and innovation-values fit are modifiable factors and can be targeted through intervention-a finding that is important for community pharmacy practice. Additional research is needed to determine what implementation strategies can be used by community pharmacy leaders and practitioners to develop a positive implementation climate and innovation-values fit for medication management programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Other 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Master 6 8%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 30 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 13%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 8%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 32 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,892,589
of 24,184,356 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#749
of 1,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,585
of 333,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#24
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,184,356 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. 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 333,577 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.