↓ Skip to main content

The most used and most helpful facilitators for patient-centered medical home implementation

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The most used and most helpful facilitators for patient-centered medical home implementation
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0246-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Randall C Gale, Steven M Asch, Thomas Taylor, Karin M Nelson, Jeff Luck, Lisa S Meredith, Christian D Helfrich

Abstract

Like other transformative healthcare initiatives, patient-centered medical home (PCMH) implementation requires substantial investments of time and resources. Even though PCMH and PCMH-like models are being implemented by multiple provider practices and health systems, little is known about what facilitates their implementation. The purpose of this study was to assess which PCMH-implementation resources are most widely used, by whom, and which resources primary care personnel find most helpful. This study is an analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey of primary care personnel in the Veterans Health Administration in 2012, in which respondents were asked to rate whether they were aware of and accessed PCMH-implementation resources, and to rate their helpfulness. Logistic regression was used to produce odds ratios for the outcomes (1) resource use and (2) resource helpfulness. Respondents were nested within clinics, nested, in turn, within 135 parent hospitals. Teamlet huddles were the most widely accessed (80.4% accessed) and most helpful (90.4% rated helpful) resource; quality-improvement methods to conduct small tests of change were the least frequently accessed (42.4% accessed) resource though two-thirds (66.7%) of users reported as helpful. Supervisors were significantly more likely (ORs, 1.46 to 1.86) to use resources than non-supervisors but were less likely to rate the majority (8 out of 10) of resources as "somewhat/very helpful" than non-supervisors (ORs, 0.72 to 0.84). Longer-tenured employees tended to rate resources as more helpful. These findings are the first in the PCMH literature that we are aware of that systematically assesses primary care staff's access to and the helpfulness of PCMH implementation resources. Supervisors generally reported greater access to resources, relative to non-supervisors, but rated resources as less helpful, suggesting that information about them may not have been optimally disseminated. Knowing what resources primary care staff use and find helpful can inform administrators' and policymakers' investments in PCMH-implementation resources. The implications of our model extend beyond just PCMH implementation but also to considerations when providing implementation resources for other complex quality-improvement initiatives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Other 14 25%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 18%
Social Sciences 10 18%
Psychology 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 12 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 September 2021.
All research outputs
#3,041,764
of 24,831,063 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#643
of 1,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,838
of 270,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#19
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,831,063 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 1,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one 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 270,594 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.