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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Implementation findings from a hybrid III implementation-effectiveness trial of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-017-0619-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura J. Damschroder, Caitlin M. Reardon, Mona AuYoung, Tannaz Moin, Santanu K. Datta, Jordan B. Sparks, Matthew L. Maciejewski, Nanette I. Steinle, Jane E. Weinreb, Maria Hughes, Lillian F. Pinault, Xinran M. Xiang, Charles Billington, Caroline R. Richardson |
| Abstract |
The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is an effective lifestyle intervention to reduce incidence of type 2 diabetes. However, there are gaps in knowledge about how to implement DPP. The aim of this study was to evaluate implementation of DPP via assessment of a clinical demonstration in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). A 12-month pragmatic clinical trial compared weight outcomes between the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Prevention Program (VA-DPP) and the usual care MOVE!® weight management program (MOVE!). Eligible participants had a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m(2) (or BMI ≥ 25 kg/m(2) with one obesity-related condition), prediabetes (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 5.7-6.5% or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 100-125 mg/dL), lived within 60 min of their VA site, and had not participated in a weight management program within the last year. Established evaluation and implementation frameworks were used to guide the implementation evaluation. Implementation barriers and facilitators, delivery fidelity, participant satisfaction, and implementation costs were assessed. Using micro-costing methods, costs for assessment of eligibility and scheduling and maintaining adherence per participant, as well as cost of delivery per session, were also assessed. Several barriers and facilitators to Reach, Adoption, Implementation, Effectiveness and Maintenance were identified; barriers related to Reach were the largest challenge encountered by site teams. Fidelity was higher for VA-DPP delivery compared to MOVE! for five of seven domains assessed. Participant satisfaction was high in both programs, but higher in VA-DPP for most items. Based on micro-costing methods, cost of assessment for eligibility was $68/individual assessed, cost of scheduling and maintaining adherence was $328/participant, and cost of delivery was $101/session. Multi-faceted strategies are needed to reach targeted participants and successfully implement DPP. Costs for assessing patients for eligibility need to be carefully considered while still maximizing reach to the targeted population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 37% |
| Ireland | 2 | 11% |
| South Africa | 1 | 5% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 5% |
| Colombia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 53% |
| Scientists | 5 | 26% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 147 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 51 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 8% |
| Psychology | 8 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 53 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 29 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,851,791
of 23,306,612 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#635
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,095
of 317,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#27
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,306,612 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 317,856 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 82% 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 is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.