↓ Skip to main content

Application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to assess factors that may influence implementation of tobacco use treatment guidelines in the Viet Nam public health care…

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 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
Application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to assess factors that may influence implementation of tobacco use treatment guidelines in the Viet Nam public health care delivery system
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0558-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy VanDevanter, Pritika Kumar, Nam Nguyen, Linh Nguyen, Trang Nguyen, Frances Stillman, Bryan Weiner, Donna Shelley

Abstract

Services to treat tobacco dependence are not readily available to smokers in low-middle income countries (LMICs) where smoking prevalence remains high. We are conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of two strategies for implementing tobacco use treatment guidelines in 26 community health centers (CHCs) in Viet Nam. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), prior to implementing the trial, we conducted formative research to (1) identify factors that may influence guideline implementation and (2) inform further modifications to the intervention that may be necessary to translate a model of care delivery from a high-income country (HIC) to the local context of a LMIC. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with CHC medical directors, health care providers, and village health workers (VHWs) in eight CHCs (n = 40). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and translated into English. Two qualitative researchers used both deductive (CFIR theory driven) and inductive (open coding) approaches to analysis developed codes and themes relevant to the aims of this study. The interviews explored four out of five CFIR domains (i.e., intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and individual characteristics) that were relevant to the analysis. Potential facilitators of the intervention included the relative advantage of the intervention compared with current practice (intervention characteristics), awareness of the burden of tobacco use in the population (outer setting), tension for change due to a lack of training and need for skill building and leadership engagement (inner setting), and a strong sense of collective efficacy to provide tobacco cessation services (individual characteristics). Potential barriers included the perception that the intervention was more complex (intervention characteristic) and not necessarily compatible (inner setting) with current workflows and staffing historically designed to address infectious disease prevention and control rather than chronic disease prevention and competing priorities that are determined by the MOH (outer setting). In this study, CFIR provided a valuable framework for evaluating factors that may influence implementation of a systems-level intervention for tobacco control in a LMIC and understand what adaptations may be needed to translate a model of care delivery from a HIC to a LMIC. NCT02564653 . Registered September 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 206 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 16%
Student > Master 34 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 4%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 59 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 17%
Social Sciences 21 10%
Psychology 13 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 63 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,766,114
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,131
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,745
of 310,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#28
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 310,863 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.