↓ Skip to main content

ImpRess: an Implementation Readiness checklist developed using a systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing cognitive stimulation for dementia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
ImpRess: an Implementation Readiness checklist developed using a systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing cognitive stimulation for dementia
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0268-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy Streater, Aimee Spector, Elisa Aguirre, Jacki Stansfeld, Martin Orrell

Abstract

Research reporting results of clinical trials, psychosocial or technological interventions frequently omit critical details needed to inform implementation in practice. The aim of this article is to develop an Implementation Readiness (ImpRess) checklist, that includes criteria deemed useful in measuring readiness for implementation and apply it to trials of cognitive stimulation in dementia, providing a systematic review of their readiness for widespread implementation. Five electronic databases were searched. After initial screening of papers, two reviewers assessed quality and scored the included studies based on the ImpRess checklist specifically developed for this review. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. As determined by the ImpRess checklist, scores ranged from 11 to 29 out of 52. According to the checklist the most comprehensive and ready to implement version of cognitive stimulation was Cognitive Stimulation Therapy. Reports of interventions rarely include consideration of implementation in practice. Contrary to the growing number of reporting guidelines, crucial items within the ImpRess checklist have been frequently overlooked. This study was able to show that the ImpRess checklist was feasible in practice and reliable. The checklist may be useful in evaluating readiness for implementation for other manualised interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Researcher 7 14%
Other 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 14 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 December 2016.
All research outputs
#11,839,531
of 20,927,597 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,122
of 1,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,925
of 419,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#68
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,927,597 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,862 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 419,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 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 51% of its contemporaries.