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 |
Informed Adaptations of a Strength-Training Program through a Research–Practice Partnership
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00058 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meghan L. Wilson, Thomas E. Strayer, Rebecca Davis, Samantha M. Harden |
| Abstract |
Efficacy and effectiveness data for strength-training programs targeting older adults have been well established, but it is evident that they are not translated within practice-based settings to have a public health impact, as most (~90%) older adults are not meeting strength-training recommendations. Strength-training interventions developed, delivered, and evaluated in highly controlled settings (e.g., eligibility requirements, certified instructor, etc.) may not reflect real-world needs. One strategy to improve these outcomes is to work through an integrated research-practice partnership (IRPP) to plan and evaluate an intervention to better fit within the intended delivery system. The purpose of this study was to describe the IRPP method by which academic and practice representatives can partner to select and adapt a best-fit strength-training program for older adults. This work was planned and evaluated using the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance framework, applying the AIM dimensions to complement the methodology of the partnership. In this pragmatic work, members of the IRPP adapted the evidence-based program, Stay Strong, Stay Healthy (SSSH) into a new program, Lifelong Improvements through Fitness Together (LIFT). Of the health educators who agreed to be randomized to deliver LIFT or SSSH (N = 9), five were randomized to SSSH and four were randomized to deliver LIFT. Fifty percent of educators randomized to SSSH delivered the program, whereas 80% of the health educators randomized to LIFT delivered the program. The health educators deemed LIFT more suitable for delivery than SSSH, self-reported high rates of fidelity in program delivery, and intended on delivering the program in the following year. In conclusion, this study provides transparent methods for using an IRPP to adapt an intervention as well as preliminary outcomes related to adoption, implementation, and maintenance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 2 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,002,244
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,357
of 11,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,865
of 332,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#56
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 332,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 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 50% of its contemporaries.