↓ Skip to main content

Study protocol for “Healthy Hearts Northwest”: a 2 × 2 randomized factorial trial to build quality improvement capacity in primary care

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Study protocol for “Healthy Hearts Northwest”: a 2 × 2 randomized factorial trial to build quality improvement capacity in primary care
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0502-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael L. Parchman, Lyle J. Fagnan, David A. Dorr, Peggy Evans, Andrea J. Cook, Robert B. Penfold, Clarissa Hsu, Allen Cheadle, Laura-Mae Baldwin, Leah Tuzzio

Abstract

Little attention has been paid to quality improvement (QI) capacity within smaller primary care practices which comprise nearly half of all primary care settings. Strategies for external support to build such capacity include practice facilitation (PF), shared learning opportunities, and educational outreach. Although PF has proven effectiveness, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of combining these strategies. Here, we describe the protocol of the "Healthy Hearts Northwest" (H2N) study, a randomized trial designed to address these questions while improving risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The targeted enrollment is 250 smaller primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The study is utilizing a two-by-two factorial design to assess four different combinations of practice support: PF alone, PF with educational outreach, PF with shared learning opportunities, or PF with both. A mixed methods approach is being used for evaluation and will include data from (1) baseline and follow-up practice and staff surveys; (2) baseline and quarterly clinical performance measurement from each practice on four cardiovascular risk factors: appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure control, lipid management and smoking cessation support; and (3) a quality improvement capacity assessment (QICA) survey used by external practice facilitators to guide improvement efforts. Results from this study will inform future large-scale practice improvement initiatives by providing comparisons of promising external practice support strategies and advance our understanding of how to build QI capacity in primary care. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02839382.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Student > Master 8 13%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 19 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Psychology 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 23 38%
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 14 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,867,545
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,563
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,588
of 321,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#33
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 321,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.