↓ Skip to main content

Engaging primary care practitioners in quality improvement: making explicit the program theory of an interprofessional education intervention

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2013
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 (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
Engaging primary care practitioners in quality improvement: making explicit the program theory of an interprofessional education intervention
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-106
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brigitte Vachon, Bruno Désorcy, Michel Camirand, Jean Rodrigue, Louise Quesnel, Claude Guimond, Martin Labelle, Johanne Fournier, Jeremy Grimshaw

Abstract

The scientific literature continues to advocate interprofessional collaboration (IPC) as a key component of primary care. It is recommended that primary care groups be created and configured to meet the healthcare needs of the patient population, as defined by patient demographics and other data analyses related to the health of the population being served. It is further recommended that the improvement of primary care services be supported by the delivery of feedback and performance measurements. This paper describes the theory underlying an interprofessional educational intervention developed in Quebec's Montérégie region (Canada) for the purpose of improving chronic disease management in primary care. The objectives of this study were to explain explicitly the theory underlying this intervention, to describe its components in detail and to assess the intervention's feasibility and acceptability.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
India 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 143 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 14%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Other 43 29%
Unknown 14 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 17%
Social Sciences 19 13%
Psychology 8 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 22 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 02 March 2017.
All research outputs
#2,655,286
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,080
of 4,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,424
of 143,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 143,494 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 60% of its contemporaries.