↓ Skip to main content

A Hybrid III stepped wedge cluster randomized trial testing an implementation strategy to facilitate the use of an evidence-based practice in VA Homeless Primary Care Treatment Programs

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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 Hybrid III stepped wedge cluster randomized trial testing an implementation strategy to facilitate the use of an evidence-based practice in VA Homeless Primary Care Treatment Programs
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0563-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Molly M. Simmons, Sonya Gabrielian, Thomas Byrne, Megan B. McCullough, Jeffery L. Smith, Thom J. Taylor, Tom P. O’Toole, Vincent Kane, Vera Yakovchenko, D. Keith McInnes, David A. Smelson

Abstract

Homeless veterans often have multiple health care and psychosocial needs, including assistance with access to housing and health care, as well as support for ongoing treatment engagement. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) developed specialized Homeless Patient Alignment Care Teams (HPACT) with the goal of offering an integrated, "one-stop program" to address housing and health care needs of homeless veterans. However, while 70% of HPACT's veteran enrollees have co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders, HPACT does not have a uniform, embedded treatment protocol for this subpopulation. One wraparound intervention designed to address the needs of homeless veterans with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders which is suitable to be integrated into HPACT clinic sites is the evidence-based practice called Maintaining Independence and Sobriety through Systems Integration, Outreach, and Networking-Veterans Edition, or MISSION-Vet. Despite the promise of MISSION-Vet within HPACT clinics, implementation of an evidence-based intervention within a busy program like HPACT can be difficult. The current study is being undertaken to identify an appropriate implementation strategy for MISSION-Vet within HPACT. The study will test the implementation platform called Facilitation and compared to implementation as usual (IU). The aims of this study are as follows: (1) Compare the extent to which IU or Facilitation strategies achieve fidelity to the MISSION-Vet intervention as delivered by HPACT homeless provider staff. (2) Compare the effects of Facilitation and IU strategies on the National HPACT Performance Measures. (3) Compare the effects of IU and Facilitation on the permanent housing status. (4) Identify and describe key stakeholders' (patients, providers, staff) experiences with, and perspectives on, the barriers to, and facilitators of implementing MISSION. Type III Hybrid modified stepped wedge implementation comparing IU to Facilitation across seven HPACT teams in three sites in the greater Los Angeles VA system. This is a cluster randomized trial. Integrating MISSION-Vet within HPACT has the potential to improve the health of thousands of veterans, but it is crucial to implement the intervention appropriately in order for it to succeed. The lessons learned in this protocol could assist with a larger roll-out of MISSION within HPACT. This protocol is registered with clinicaltrials.gov and was assigned the number NCT 02942979.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 31 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 21%
Psychology 20 17%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 40 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 May 2017.
All research outputs
#8,302,623
of 24,840,108 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,310
of 1,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,556
of 314,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#37
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,840,108 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 1,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 314,213 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.