↓ Skip to main content

Improving the normalization of complex interventions: measure development based on normalization process theory (NoMAD): study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Improving the normalization of complex interventions: measure development based on normalization process theory (NoMAD): study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-43
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tracy L Finch, Tim Rapley, Melissa Girling, Frances S Mair, Elizabeth Murray, Shaun Treweek, Elaine McColl, Ian Nicholas Steen, Carl R May, Finch TL, Rapley T, Girling M, Mair FS, Murray E, Treweek S, McColl E, Steen IN, May CR

Abstract

Understanding implementation processes is key to ensuring that complex interventions in healthcare are taken up in practice and thus maximize intended benefits for service provision and (ultimately) care to patients. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) provides a framework for understanding how a new intervention becomes part of normal practice. This study aims to develop and validate simple generic tools derived from NPT, to be used to improve the implementation of complex healthcare interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 200 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 45 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 20%
Student > Master 30 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 12 6%
Other 39 18%
Unknown 28 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 26%
Social Sciences 38 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 13%
Psychology 18 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 5%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 38 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,815,398
of 12,304,922 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#542
of 1,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,010
of 141,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#6
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,304,922 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 141,853 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.