↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of how behavioral health organizations utilize training to prepare for health care reform

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
A comparison of how behavioral health organizations utilize training to prepare for health care reform
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0549-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria Stanhope, Mimi Choy-Brown, Stacey Barrenger, Jennifer Manuel, Micaela Mercado, Mary McKay, Steven C. Marcus

Abstract

Under the Affordable Care Act, States have obtained Medicaid waivers to overhaul their behavioral health service systems to improve quality and reduce costs. Critical to implementation of broad service delivery reforms has been the preparation of organizations responsible for service delivery. This study focused on one large-scale initiative to overhaul its service system with the goal of improving service quality and reducing costs. The study examined the participation of behavioral health organizations in technical assistance efforts and the extent to which organizational factors related to their participation. This study matched two datasets to examine the organizational characteristics and training participation for 196 behavioral health organizations. Organizational characteristics were drawn from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration National Mental Health Services Survey (N-MHSS). Training variables were drawn from the Clinical Technical Assistance Center's master training database. Chi-square analyses and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the proportion of organizations that participated in training, the organizational characteristics (size, population served, service quality, infrastructure) that predicted participation in training, and for those who participated, the type (clinical or business) and intensity of training (webinar, learning collaborative, in-person) they received. Overall 142 (72. 4%) of the sample participated in training. Organizations who pursued training were more likely to be large in size (p = .02), serve children in addition to adults (p < .01), provide child evidence-based practices (p = .01), and use computerized scheduling (p = .01). Of those trained, 95% participated in webinars, 64% participated in learning collaboratives and 35% participated in in-person trainings. More organizations participated in business trainings than clinical (63.8 vs. 59.2%). Organizations serving children had higher odds of participating in both clinical training (OR = 5.91, p < .01) and business training (OR = 4.24, p < .01) than those that did not serve children. The majority of organizations participated in trainings indicating desire for technical assistance to prepare for health care reform. Larger organizations and organizations serving children were more likely to participate potentially indicating increased interest in preparation. Over half participated in business trainings highlighting interest in learning to improve efficiency. Further understanding is needed to support organizational readiness for health care reform initiatives among behavioral health organizations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Psychology 5 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 32%

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 15 February 2018.
All research outputs
#8,817,209
of 15,031,909 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,254
of 1,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,628
of 357,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#18
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,031,909 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 357,301 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.