↓ Skip to main content

Translating an early childhood obesity prevention program for local community implementation: a case study of the Melbourne InFANT Program

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 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
Translating an early childhood obesity prevention program for local community implementation: a case study of the Melbourne InFANT Program
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3361-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Laws, K. D. Hesketh, K. Ball, C. Cooper, K. Vrljic, K. J. Campbell

Abstract

While there is a growing interest in the field of research translation, there are few published examples of public health interventions that have been effectively scaled up and implemented in the community. This paper provides a case study of the community-wide implementation of the Melbourne Infant, Feeding, Activity and Nutrition Trial (InFANT), an obesity prevention program for parents with infants aged 3-18 months. The study explored key factors influencing the translation of the Program into routine practice and the respective role of policy makers, researchers and implementers. Case studies were conducted of five of the eight prevention areas in Victoria, Australia who implemented the Program. Cases were selected on the basis of having implemented the Program for 6 months or more. Data were collected from January to June 2015 and included 18 individual interviews, one focus group and observation of two meetings. A total of 28 individuals, including research staff (n = 4), policy makers (n = 2) and implementers (n = 22), contributed to the data collected. Thematic analysis was conducted using cross case comparisons and key themes were verified through member checking. Key facilitators of implementation included availability of a pre-packaged evidence based program addressing a community need, along with support and training provided by research staff to local implementers. Partnerships between researchers and policy makers facilitated initial program adoption, while local partnerships supported community implementation. Community partnerships were facilitated by local coordinators through alignment of program goals with existing policies and services. Workforce capacity for program delivery and administration was a challenge, largely overcome by embedding the Program into existing roles. Adapting the Program to fit local circumstance was critical for feasible and sustainable delivery, however balancing this with program fidelity was a critical issue. The lack of ongoing funding to support translation activities was a barrier for researchers continued involvement in community implementation. Policy makers, researchers and practitioners have important and complementary roles to play in supporting the translation of effective research interventions into practice. New avenues need to be explored to strengthen partnerships between researchers and end users to support the integration of effective public health research interventions into practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 154 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 16%
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Researcher 9 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 55 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 15%
Psychology 11 7%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Sports and Recreations 7 5%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 58 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 October 2016.
All research outputs
#2,557,517
of 25,482,409 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,120
of 17,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,672
of 378,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#78
of 397 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,482,409 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 378,765 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 397 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.