↓ Skip to main content

Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based program for introduction of new health technologies and clinical practices in a local healthcare setting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2015
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 (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based program for introduction of new health technologies and clinical practices in a local healthcare setting
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1178-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire Harris, Marie Garrubba, Kelly Allen, Richard King, Cate Kelly, Malar Thiagarajan, Beverley Castleman, Wayne Ramsey, Dina Farjou

Abstract

This paper reports the process of establishing a transparent, accountable, evidence-based program for introduction of new technologies and clinical practices (TCPs) in a large Australian healthcare network. Many countries have robust evidence-based processes for assessment of new TCPs at national level. However many decisions are made by local health services where the resources and expertise to undertake health technology assessment (HTA) are limited and a lack of structure, process and transparency has been reported. An evidence-based model for process change was used to establish the program. Evidence from research and local data, experience of health service staff and consumer perspectives were incorporated at each of four steps: identifying the need for change, developing a proposal, implementation and evaluation. Checklists assessing characteristics of success, factors for sustainability and barriers and enablers were applied and implementation strategies were based on these findings. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used for process and outcome evaluation. An action research approach underpinned ongoing refinement to systems, processes and resources. A Best Practice Guide developed from the literature and stakeholder consultation identified seven program components: Governance, Decision-Making, Application Process, Monitoring and Reporting, Resources, Administration, and Evaluation and Quality Improvement. The aims of transparency and accountability were achieved. The processes are explicit, decisions published, outcomes recorded and activities reported. The aim of ascertaining rigorous evidence-based information for decision-making was not achieved in all cases. Applicants proposing new TCPs provided the evidence from research literature and local data however the information was often incorrect or inadequate, overestimating benefits and underestimating costs. Due to these limitations the initial application process was replaced by an Expression of Interest from applicants followed by a rigorous HTA by independent in-house experts. The program is generalisable to most health care organisations. With one exception, the components would be achievable with minimal additional resources; the lack of skills and resources required for HTA will limit effective application in many settings. A toolkit containing details of the processes and sample materials is provided to facilitate replication or local adaptation by those wishing to establish a similar program.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 95 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 18%
Social Sciences 14 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 8%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 17 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,640,416
of 14,255,789 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,244
of 4,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,621
of 364,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#73
of 302 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,255,789 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 364,075 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 302 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 74% of its contemporaries.