↓ Skip to main content

Successful Deployment of High Flow Nasal Cannula in a Peruvian Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Using Implementation Science—Lessons Learned

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Successful Deployment of High Flow Nasal Cannula in a Peruvian Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Using Implementation Science—Lessons Learned
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2018.00085
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katie R. Nielsen, Rosario Becerra, Gabriela Mallma, José Tantaleán da Fieno

Abstract

Acute lower respiratory infections are the leading cause of death outside the neonatal period for children less than 5 years of age. Widespread availability of invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in resource-rich settings has reduced mortality rates; however, these technologies are not always available in many low- and middle-income countries due to the high cost and trained personnel required to implement and sustain their use. High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a form of non-invasive respiratory support with growing evidence for use in pediatric respiratory failure. Its simple interface makes utilization in resource-limited settings appealing, although widespread implementation in these settings lags behind resource-rich settings. Implementation science is an emerging field dedicated to closing the know-do gap by incorporating evidence-based interventions into routine care, and its principles have guided the scaling up of many global health interventions. In 2016, we introduced HFNC use for respiratory failure in a pediatric intensive care unit in Lima, Peru using implementation science methodology. Here, we review our experience in the context of the principles of implementation science to serve as a guide for others considering HFNC implementation in resource-limited settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 16%
Student > Master 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 20 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,504,780
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#2,677
of 6,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,830
of 329,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#72
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 329,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.