↓ Skip to main content

Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0446-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Chinman, Joie Acosta, Patricia Ebener, Patrick S. Malone, Mary E. Slaughter

Abstract

Research is needed to evaluate the impact of implementation support interventions over and above typical efforts by community settings to deploy evidence-based prevention programs. Enhancing Quality Interventions Promoting Healthy Sexuality is a randomized controlled trial testing Getting To Outcomes (GTO), a 2-year implementation support intervention. It compares 16 Boys and Girls Club sites implementing Making Proud Choices (MPC, control group), a structured teen pregnancy prevention evidence-based program with 16 similar sites implementing MPC augmented with GTO (intervention group). All sites received training and manuals typical for MPC. GTO has its own manuals, training, and onsite technical assistance (TA) to help practitioners complete key programming practices specified by GTO. During the first year, TA providers helped the intervention group adopt, plan, and deliver MPC. This group then received training on the evaluation and quality improvement steps of GTO, including feedback reports summarizing their data, which were used in a TA-facilitated quality improvement process that yielded revised plans for the second MPC implementation. This paper presents results regarding GTO's impact on performance of the sites (i.e., how well key programming practices were carried out), fidelity of MPC implementation, and the relationship between amount of TA support, performance, and fidelity. Performance was measured using ratings made from a standardized, structured interview conducted with participating staff at all 32 Boys and Girls Clubs sites after the first and second years of MPC implementation. Multiple elements of fidelity (adherence, classroom delivery, dosage) were assessed at all sites by observer ratings and attendance logs. After 2 years, the intervention sites had higher ratings of performance, adherence, and classroom delivery (dosage remained similar). Higher performance predicted greater adherence in both years. These findings suggest that in typical community-based settings, manuals and training common to structured EBPs may be sufficient to yield low levels of performance and moderate levels of fidelity but that systematic implementation support is needed to achieve high levels of performance and fidelity. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01818791.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 142 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Student > Master 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 47 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Psychology 20 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 12%
Social Sciences 15 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 56 39%
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 09 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,645,923
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,071
of 1,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,856
of 345,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#26
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,779 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 345,451 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.