↓ Skip to main content

Use of the Theoretical Domains Framework to evaluate factors driving successful implementation of the Accelerated Chest pain Risk Evaluation (ACRE) project

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Use of the Theoretical Domains Framework to evaluate factors driving successful implementation of the Accelerated Chest pain Risk Evaluation (ACRE) project
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0500-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wade Skoien, Katie Page, William Parsonage, Sarah Ashover, Tanya Milburn, Louise Cullen

Abstract

The translation of healthcare research into practice is typically challenging and limited in effectiveness. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) identifies 12 domains of behaviour determinants which can be used to understand the principles of behavioural change, a key factor influencing implementation. The Accelerated Chest pain Risk Evaluation (ACRE) project has successfully translated research into practice, by implementing an intervention to improve the assessment of low to intermediate risk patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with chest pain. The aims of this paper are to describe use of the TDF to determine which factors successfully influenced implementation and to describe use of the TDF as a tool to evaluate implementation efforts and which domains are most relevant to successful implementation. A 30-item questionnaire targeting clinicians was developed using the TDF as a guide. Questions encompassed ten of the domains of the TDF: Knowledge; Skills; Social/professional role and identity; Beliefs about capabilities; Optimism; Beliefs about consequences; Intentions; Memory, attention and decision processes; Environmental context and resources; and Social influences. Sixty-three of 176 stakeholders (36 %) responded to the questionnaire. Responses for all scales showed that respondents were highly favourable to all aspects of the implementation. Scales with the highest mean responses were Intentions, Knowledge, and Optimism, suggesting that initial education and awareness strategies around the ACRE project were effective. Scales with the lowest mean responses were Environmental context and resources, and Social influences, perhaps highlighting that implementation planning could have benefitted from further consideration of the factors underlying these scales. The ACRE project was successful, and therefore, a perfect case study for understanding factors which drive implementation success. The overwhelmingly positive response suggests that it was a successful programme and likely that each of these domains was important for the implementation. However, a lack of variance in the responses hampered us from concluding which factors were most influential in driving the success of the implementation. The TDF offers a useful framework to conceptualise and evaluate factors impacting on implementation success. However, its broad scope makes it necessary to tailor the framework to allow evaluation of specific projects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 99 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 19%
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Lecturer 4 4%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 22 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 15%
Psychology 11 11%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 33 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 November 2016.
All research outputs
#5,255,892
of 25,250,629 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#938
of 1,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,454
of 327,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#20
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,250,629 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 327,244 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 75% of its contemporaries.
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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.