↓ Skip to main content

Can programme theory be used as a 'translational tool’ to optimise health service delivery in a national early years’ initiative in Scotland: a case study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Can programme theory be used as a 'translational tool’ to optimise health service delivery in a national early years’ initiative in Scotland: a case study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-425
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Eaves, Wendy Gnich

Abstract

Theory-based evaluation (TBE) approaches are heralded as supporting formative evaluation by facilitating increased use of evaluative findings to guide programme improvement. It is essential that learning from programme implementation is better used to improve delivery and to inform other initiatives, if interventions are to be as effective as they have the potential to be. Nonetheless, few studies describe formative feedback methods, or report direct instrumental use of findings resulting from TBE. This paper uses the case of Scotland's, National Health Service, early years', oral health improvement initiative (Childsmile) to describe the use of TBE as a framework for providing feedback on delivery to programme staff and to assess its impact on programmatic action.

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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 8%
United Kingdom 1 4%
Australia 1 4%
Unknown 21 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 24%
Researcher 3 12%
Librarian 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 6 24%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Psychology 2 8%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 3 12%

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 26 October 2013.
All research outputs
#6,869,596
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,392
of 4,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,631
of 171,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#243
of 424 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. 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 171,952 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 424 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.