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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 60% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 53 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 19% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 16 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 19 | 35% |
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
#13,339,603
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,225
of 2,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,873
of 419,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#18
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 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 2,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 419,779 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.