↓ Skip to main content

Organizational theory for dissemination and implementation research

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 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 (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
72 X users

Readers on

mendeley
384 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 theory for dissemination and implementation research
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0592-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah A. Birken, Alicia C. Bunger, Byron J. Powell, Kea Turner, Alecia S. Clary, Stacey L. Klaman, Yan Yu, Daniel J. Whitaker, Shannon R. Self, Whitney L. Rostad, Jenelle R. Shanley Chatham, M. Alexis Kirk, Christopher M. Shea, Emily Haines, Bryan J. Weiner

Abstract

Even under optimal internal organizational conditions, implementation can be undermined by changes in organizations' external environments, such as fluctuations in funding, adjustments in contracting practices, new technology, new legislation, changes in clinical practice guidelines and recommendations, or other environmental shifts. Internal organizational conditions are increasingly reflected in implementation frameworks, but nuanced explanations of how organizations' external environments influence implementation success are lacking in implementation research. Organizational theories offer implementation researchers a host of existing, highly relevant, and heretofore largely untapped explanations of the complex interaction between organizations and their environment. In this paper, we demonstrate the utility of organizational theories for implementation research. We applied four well-known organizational theories (institutional theory, transaction cost economics, contingency theories, and resource dependency theory) to published descriptions of efforts to implement SafeCare, an evidence-based practice for preventing child abuse and neglect. Transaction cost economics theory explained how frequent, uncertain processes for contracting for SafeCare may have generated inefficiencies and thus compromised implementation among private child welfare organizations. Institutional theory explained how child welfare systems may have been motivated to implement SafeCare because doing so aligned with expectations of key stakeholders within child welfare systems' professional communities. Contingency theories explained how efforts such as interagency collaborative teams promoted SafeCare implementation by facilitating adaptation to child welfare agencies' internal and external contexts. Resource dependency theory (RDT) explained how interagency relationships, supported by contracts, memoranda of understanding, and negotiations, facilitated SafeCare implementation by balancing autonomy and dependence on funding agencies and SafeCare developers. In addition to the retrospective application of organizational theories demonstrated above, we advocate for the proactive use of organizational theories to design implementation research. For example, implementation strategies should be selected to minimize transaction costs, promote and maintain congruence between organizations' dynamic internal and external contexts over time, and simultaneously attend to organizations' financial needs while preserving their autonomy. We describe implications of applying organizational theory in implementation research for implementation strategies, the evaluation of implementation efforts, measurement, research design, theory, and practice. We also offer guidance to implementation researchers for applying organizational theory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 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 384 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 382 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 17%
Researcher 44 11%
Student > Master 42 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 40 10%
Other 22 6%
Other 76 20%
Unknown 95 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 59 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 38 10%
Psychology 29 8%
Other 57 15%
Unknown 121 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 12 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,001,438
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#132
of 1,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,714
of 325,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#6
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 325,557 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 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.