The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Improving Nursing Home Care through Feedback On PerfoRMance Data (INFORM): Protocol for a cluster-randomized trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-016-1748-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthias Hoben, Peter G. Norton, Liane R. Ginsburg, Ruth A. Anderson, Greta G. Cummings, Holly J. Lanham, Janet E. Squires, Deanne Taylor, Adrian S. Wagg, Carole A. Estabrooks |
| Abstract |
Audit and feedback is effective in improving the quality of care. However, methods and results of international studies are heterogeneous, and studies have been criticized for a lack of systematic use of theory. In TREC (Translating Research in Elder Care), a longitudinal health services research program, we collect comprehensive data from care providers and residents in Canadian nursing homes to improve quality of care and life of residents, and quality of worklife of caregivers. The study aims are to a) systematically feed back TREC research data to nursing home care units, and b) compare the effectiveness of three different theory-based feedback strategies in improving performance within care units. INFORM (Improving Nursing Home Care through Feedback On PerfoRMance Data) is a 3.5-year pragmatic, three-arm, parallel, cluster-randomized trial. We will randomize 67 Western Canadian nursing homes with 203 care units to the three study arms, a standard feedback strategy and two assisted and goal-directed feedback strategies. Interventions will target care unit managerial teams. They are based on theory and evidence related to audit and feedback, goal setting, complex adaptive systems, and empirical work on feeding back research results. The primary outcome is the increased number of formal interactions (e.g., resident rounds or family conferences) involving care aides - non-registered caregivers providing up to 80% of direct care. Secondary outcomes are a) other modifiable features of care unit context (improved feedback, social capital, slack time) b) care aides' quality of worklife (improved psychological empowerment, job satisfaction), c) more use of best practices, and d) resident outcomes based on the Resident Assessment Instrument - Minimum Data Set 2.0. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, immediately after the 12-month intervention period, and 18 months post intervention. INFORM is the first study to systematically assess the effectiveness of different strategies to feed back research data to nursing home care units in order to improve their performance. Results of this study will enable development of a practical, sustainable, effective, and cost-effective feedback strategy for routine use by managers, policy makers and researchers. The results may also be generalizable to care settings other than nursing homes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02695836 . Date of registration: 24 February 2016. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 80% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 174 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 13% |
| Researcher | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 20% |
| Unknown | 53 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 42 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 16% |
| Psychology | 12 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 13% |
| Unknown | 56 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 August 2019.
All research outputs
#15,307,581
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#23
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,948
of 427,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#28
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one scored the same or higher as 22 of them.
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 427,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.