↓ Skip to main content

Implementing the DEcision-Aid for Lupus (IDEAL): study protocol of a multi-site implementation trial with observational, case study design

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science Communications, March 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Implementing the DEcision-Aid for Lupus (IDEAL): study protocol of a multi-site implementation trial with observational, case study design
Published in
Implementation Science Communications, March 2021
DOI 10.1186/s43058-021-00118-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasvinder A. Singh, Larry R. Hearld, Allyson G. Hall, T. Mark Beasley

Abstract

To provide the details of the study protocol for an observational, case study design, implementation trial. Implementing the DEcision-Aid for Lupus (IDEAL) study will put into practice a shared decision-making (SDM) strategy, using an individualized, culturally appropriate computerized decision-aid (DA) for lupus patients in 15 geographically diverse clinics in the USA. The overarching frameworks that guide this implementation study are the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Powell's typology of implementation strategies. All 15 clinics will receive standardized capacity-building activities for lupus DA implementation in the clinic, including education, training, technical assistance, re-training, and incorporation of a clinic champion in the core team of each site. In addition, clinics will also choose among clinic-targeted activities to integrate the DA into existing work processes and/or patient-targeted activities to raise awareness and educate patients about the DA. These activities will be chosen to stimulate participant recruitment and retention activities that support the implementation of the DA at their clinic. In study aim 1, using surveys and semi-structured interviews with clinic personnel in 15 lupus clinics, we will assess stakeholder needs and identify clinic and contextual characteristics that inform the implementation strategy component selection and influence implementation effectiveness. Study aim 2 is to implement and assess the effectiveness of the IDEAL (standardized and tailored) strategy in 15 lupus clinics by examining the changes in our primary outcome of penetration, i.e., the proportion of all eligible patients in the clinic that receive the lupus DA, and secondary outcomes include DA appropriateness, acceptability, success, permanence, and feasibility. Study aim 3 is to identify ways to sustain and disseminate our lupus DA via semi-structured debriefing interviews with key clinic personnel and patients. The study will enroll at least 500 patient participants with lupus across all 15 sites and assess the effectiveness in implementing the DA in various clinic settings across the USA. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03735238 . Protocol version number: 15, date 6/8/2020.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 24%
Student > Master 3 18%
Other 2 12%
Unspecified 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 18%
Unspecified 2 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 7 41%
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 17 March 2021.
All research outputs
#14,051,549
of 23,796,227 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science Communications
#312
of 426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,983
of 424,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science Communications
#29
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,796,227 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 424,682 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.