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 theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-016-0422-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Erica Breuer, Lucy Lee, Mary De Silva, Crick Lund |
| Abstract |
Despite the increasing popularity of the theory of change (ToC) approach, little is known about the extent to which ToC has been used in the design and evaluation of public health interventions. This review aims to determine how ToCs have been developed and used in the development and evaluation of public health interventions globally. We searched for papers reporting the use of "theory of change" in the development or evaluation of public health interventions in databases of peer-reviewed journal articles such as Scopus, Pubmed, PsychInfo, grey literature databases, Google and websites of development funders. We included papers of any date, language or study design. Both abstracts and full text papers were double screened. Data were extracted and narratively and quantitatively summarised. A total of 62 papers were included in the review. Forty-nine (79 %) described the development of ToC, 18 (29 %) described the use of ToC in the development of the intervention and 49 (79 %) described the use of ToC in the evaluation of the intervention. Although a large number of papers were included in the review, their descriptions of the ToC development and use in intervention design and evaluation lacked detail. The use of the ToC approach is widespread in the public health literature. Clear reporting of the ToC process and outputs is important to strengthen the body of literature on practical application of ToC in order to develop our understanding of the benefits and advantages of using ToC. We also propose a checklist for reporting on the use of ToC to ensure transparent reporting and recommend that our checklist is used and refined by authors reporting the ToC approach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 Kingdom | 12 | 30% |
| United States | 7 | 18% |
| Canada | 4 | 10% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Egypt | 1 | 3% |
| Senegal | 1 | 3% |
| Greece | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 57% |
| Scientists | 9 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 793 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Qatar | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 783 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 119 | 15% |
| Researcher | 116 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 112 | 14% |
| Other | 45 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 42 | 5% |
| Other | 163 | 21% |
| Unknown | 196 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 137 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 118 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 90 | 11% |
| Psychology | 45 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 20 | 3% |
| Other | 148 | 19% |
| Unknown | 235 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 11 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,079,368
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#174
of 1,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,513
of 312,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#6
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 312,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.