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 |
The FORGE AHEAD clinical readiness consultation tool: a validated tool to assess clinical readiness for chronic disease care mobilization in Canada’s First Nations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-017-2175-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariam Naqshbandi Hayward, Selam Mequanint, Jann Paquette-Warren, Ross Bailie, Alexandra Chirila, Roland Dyck, Michael Green, Anthony Hanley, Jordan Tompkins, Stewart Harris, On behalf of the FORGE AHEAD Program Team |
| Abstract |
Given the astounding rates of diabetes and related complications, and the barriers to providing care present in Indigenous communities in Canada, intervention strategies that take into account contextual factors such as readiness to mobilize are needed to maximize improvements and increase the likelihood of success and sustainment. As part of the national FORGE AHEAD Program, we sought to develop, test and validate a clinical readiness consultation tool aimed at assessing the readiness of clinical teams working on-reserve in First Nations communities to participate in quality improvement (QI) to enhance diabetes care in Canada. A literature review was conducted to identify existing readiness tools. The ABCD - SAT was adapted using a consensus approach that emphasized a community-based participatory approach and prioritized the knowledge and wisdom held by community members. The tool was piloted with a group of 16 people from 7 provinces and 11 partnering communities to assess language use, clarity, relevance, format, and ease of completion using examples. Internal reliability analysis and convergence validity were conducted with data from 53 clinical team members from 11 First Nations communities (3-5 per community) who have participated in the FORGE AHEAD program. The 27-page Clinical Readiness Consultation Tool (CRCT) consists of five main components, 21 sub-components, and 74 items that are aligned with the Expanded Chronic Care Model. Five-point Likert scale feedback from the pilot ranged from 3.25 to 4.5. Length of the tool was reported as a drawback but respondents noted that all the items were needed to provide a comprehensive picture of the healthcare system. Results for internal consistency showed that all sub-components except for two were within acceptable ranges (0.77-0.93). The Team Structure and Function sub-component scale had a moderately significant positive correlation with the validated Team Climate Inventory, r = 0.45, p < 0.05. The testing and validation of the FORGE AHEAD CRCT demonstrated that the tool is acceptable, valid and reliable. The CRCT has been successfully used to support the implementation of the FORGE AHEAD Program and the health services changes that partnering First Nations communities have designed and undertaken to improve diabetes care. Current ClinicalTrial.gov protocol ID NCT02234973 . Date of Registration: July 30, 2014. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 99 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 19% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 20% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 35 | 35% |
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 17 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,954,525
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,409
of 7,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,392
of 309,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#60
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 309,217 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 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 57% of its contemporaries.