↓ Skip to main content

Organizational supports used by private child and family serving agencies to facilitate evidence use: a mixed methods study protocol

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Organizational supports used by private child and family serving agencies to facilitate evidence use: a mixed methods study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0580-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmeline Chuang, Crystal Collins-Camargo, Bowen McBeath

Abstract

Challenges to evidence use are well documented. Less well understood are the formal supports-e.g., technical infrastructure, inter-organizational relationships-organizations may put in place to help overcome these challenges. This study will identify supports for evidence use currently used by private child and family serving agencies delivering publicly funded behavioral health and/or human services; examine contextual, organizational, and managerial factors associated with use of such supports; and determine how identified supports affect evidence use by staff at multiple levels of the organization. We will use a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, with study activities occurring in two sequential phases: In phase 1, quantitative survey data collected from managers of private child and family serving agencies in six states (CA, IN, KY, MO, PA, and WI) and analyzed using both regression and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) will identify organizational supports currently being used to facilitate evidence use and examine the contextual, organizational, and managerial factors associated with the use of such supports. In phase 2, data from phase 1 will be used to select a purposive sample of 12 agencies for in-depth case studies. In those 12 agencies, semi-structured interviews with key informants and managers, focus groups with frontline staff, and document analysis will provide further insight into agencies' motivation for investing in organizational supports for evidence use and the facilitators and barriers encountered in doing so. Semi-structured interviews with managers and focus groups with frontline staff will also assess whether and how identified supports affect evidence use at different levels of the organization (senior executives, middle managers, frontline supervisors, and frontline staff). Within- and between-case analyses supplemented by QCA will identify combinations of factors associated with the highest and lowest levels of staff evidence use. This study will inform efforts to improve sustainment, scale-up, and spread of evidence by providing insight into organizational and managerial strategies that facilitate evidence use, the contexts in which these strategies are most effective, and their effect on evidence use by staff at different levels of the organization.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 10 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 21%
Psychology 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 15 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,829,220
of 11,298,646 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#552
of 1,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,538
of 265,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#26
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,298,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 265,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.