↓ Skip to main content

Providing online weight management in Primary Care: a mixed methods process evaluation of healthcare practitioners’ experiences of using and supporting patients using POWeR+

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Providing online weight management in Primary Care: a mixed methods process evaluation of healthcare practitioners’ experiences of using and supporting patients using POWeR+
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0596-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Smith, Katherine Bradbury, Lisa Scott, Mary Steele, Paul Little, Lucy Yardley

Abstract

An online weight management intervention (POWeR+) combined with a small amount of primary care healthcare practitioner support is effective in helping patients to lose weight, but little is known about how practitioners interact with the POWeR+ intervention or their experiences of providing support for patients using POWeR+. The aim of this study was to explore practitioners' usage of POWeR+ and their experiences of providing support to patients using POWeR+. Set within a randomised controlled trial of POWeR+, practitioners' usage of POWeR+ was automatically captured and a qualitative process analysis was conducted employing semi-structured telephone interviews with practitioners who provided support to patients using POWeR+. The usage analysis captured how 54 practitioners used the POWeR+ intervention. Thirteen telephone interviews explored practitioners' experiences of using POWeR+ and providing patients with face-to-face or remote (email and telephone) support. Interview data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Usage analysis indicated that almost all practitioners engaged with POWeR+. Pages which displayed patients' progress and allowed practitioners to email patients were used the most. Practitioners found POWeR+ straightforward and easy to use. Some practitioners preferred providing support face-to-face, which they enjoyed more than remote support. A small number of nurses found providing non-directive support using the CARe approach (Congratulate, Ask, Remind) challenging, feeling it was the opposite of their normal approach. POWeR+ enabled practitioners to raise the topic of weight loss with patients, and POWeR+ was viewed as a superior alternative to existing weight management support which was limited in most practices. Still some practitioners found it difficult to fit providing support into their busy schedules. Overall, practitioners engaged well with POWeR+ and perceived providing patients with support whilst using POWeR+ as acceptable and feasible. CARe provides a potentially useful model for how practitioners can combine human and digital support in a cost-effective way, which could be useful for the management of other conditions. Some potential barriers to implementation were identified, which allowed modification of POWeR+. The findings suggest that implementing this cost-effective online weight management intervention in Primary Care would be feasible and acceptable to practitioners. ClinicalTrial.gov, ISRCTN21244703.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 105 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Master 12 11%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 34 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Psychology 11 10%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 37 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,467,011
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,117
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,416
of 313,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#30
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 313,682 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.