↓ Skip to main content

Systematic development and implementation of interventions to OPtimise Health Literacy and Access (Ophelia)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
43 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
288 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
Systematic development and implementation of interventions to OPtimise Health Literacy and Access (Ophelia)
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4147-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison Beauchamp, Roy W. Batterham, Sarity Dodson, Brad Astbury, Gerald R. Elsworth, Crystal McPhee, Jeanine Jacobson, Rachelle Buchbinder, Richard H. Osborne

Abstract

The need for healthcare strengthening to enhance equity is critical, requiring systematic approaches that focus on those experiencing lesser access and outcomes. This project developed and tested the Ophelia (OPtimising HEalth LIteracy and Access) approach for co-design of interventions to improve health literacy and equity of access. Eight principles guided this development: Outcomes focused; Equity driven, Needs diagnosis, Co-design, Driven by local wisdom, Sustainable, Responsive and Systematically applied. We report the application of the Ophelia process where proof-of-concept was defined as successful application of the principles. Nine sites were briefed on the aims of the project around health literacy, co-design and quality improvement. The sites were rural/metropolitan, small/large hospitals, community health centres or municipalities. Each site identified their own priorities for improvement; collected health literacy data using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) within the identified priority groups; engaged staff in co-design workshops to generate ideas for improvement; developed program-logic models; and implemented their projects using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. Evaluation included assessment of impacts on organisations, practitioners and service users, and whether the principles were applied. Sites undertook co-design workshops involving discussion of service user needs informed by HLQ (n = 813) and interview data. Sites generated between 21 and 78 intervention ideas and then planned their selected interventions through program-logic models. Sites successfully implemented interventions and refined them progressively with PDSA cycles. Interventions generally involved one of four pathways: development of clinician skills and resources for health literacy, engagement of community volunteers to disseminate health promotion messages, direct impact on consumers' health literacy, and redesign of existing services. Evidence of application of the principles was found in all sites. The Ophelia approach guided identification of health literacy issues at each participating site and the development and implementation of locally appropriate solutions. The eight principles provided a framework that allowed flexible application of the Ophelia approach and generation of a diverse set of interventions. Changes were observed at organisational, staff, and community member levels. The Ophelia approach can be used to generate health service improvements that enhance health outcomes and address inequity of access to healthcare.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 287 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 12%
Researcher 28 10%
Student > Bachelor 21 7%
Lecturer 16 6%
Other 55 19%
Unknown 98 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 52 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 16%
Social Sciences 23 8%
Psychology 18 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 2%
Other 35 12%
Unknown 108 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 06 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,010,932
of 25,137,221 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,099
of 16,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,601
of 316,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#27
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,137,221 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,787 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 316,451 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.