↓ Skip to main content

Research on the Translation and Implementation of Stepping On in Three Wisconsin Communities

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Research on the Translation and Implementation of Stepping On in Three Wisconsin Communities
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00128
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy E. Schlotthauer, Jane E. Mahoney, Ann L. Christiansen, Vicki L. Gobel, Peter Layde, Valeree Lecey, Karin A. Mack, Terry Shea, Lindy Clemson

Abstract

Falls are a leading cause of injury death. Stepping On is a fall prevention program developed in Australia and shown to reduce falls by up to 31%. The original program was implemented in a community setting, by an occupational therapist, and included a home visit. The purpose of this study was to examine aspects of the translation and implementation of Stepping On in three community settings in Wisconsin. The investigative team identified four research questions to understand the spread and use of the program, as well as to determine whether critical components of the program could be modified to maximize use in community practice. The team evaluated program uptake, participant reach, program feasibility, program acceptability, and program fidelity by varying the implementation setting and components of Stepping On. Implementation setting included type of host organization, rural versus urban location, health versus non-health background of leaders, and whether a phone call could replace the home visit. A mixed methodology of surveys and interviews completed by site managers, leaders, guest experts, participants, and content expert observations for program fidelity during classes was used. The study identified implementation challenges that varied by setting, including securing a physical therapist for the class and needing more time to recruit participants. There were no implementation differences between rural and urban locations. Potential differences emerged in program fidelity between health and non-health professional leaders, although fidelity was high overall with both. Home visits identified more home hazards than did phone calls and were perceived as of greater benefit to participants, but at 1 year no differences were apparent in uptake of strategies discussed in home versus phone visits. Adaptations to the program to increase implementation include using a leader who is a non-health professional, and omitting the home visit. Our research demonstrated that a non-health professional leader can conduct Stepping On with adequate fidelity, however non-health professional leaders may benefit from increased training in certain aspects of Stepping On. A phone call may be substituted for the home visit, although short-term benefits are greater with the home visit.

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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 16 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,940,583
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#4,068
of 10,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,699
of 317,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#54
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 317,409 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.