↓ Skip to main content

GRAIDs: a framework for closing the gap in the availability of health promotion programs and interventions for people with disabilities

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, August 2014
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
GRAIDs: a framework for closing the gap in the availability of health promotion programs and interventions for people with disabilities
Published in
Implementation Science, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0100-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

James H Rimmer, Kerri A Vanderbom, Linda G Bandini, Charles E Drum, Karen Luken, Yolanda Suarez-Balcazar, Ian D Graham

Abstract

BackgroundEvidence-based health promotion programs developed and tested in the general population typically exclude people with disabilities. To address this gap, a set of methods and criteria were created to adapt evidence-based health promotion programs for people with disabilities. In this first study, we describe a framework for adapting evidence-based obesity prevention strategies for people with disabilities. We illustrate how the framework has been used to adapt the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention¿s (CDC) obesity prevention strategies for individuals with physical and developmental disabilities.MethodsThe development of inclusion guidelines, recommendations and adaptations for obesity prevention (referred to as GRAIDs ¿ Guidelines, Recommendations, Adaptations Including Disability) consists of five components: (i) a scoping review of the published and grey literature; (ii) an expert workgroup composed of nationally recognized leaders in disability and health promotion who review, discuss and modify the scoping review materials and develop the content into draft GRAIDs; (iii) focus groups with individuals with disabilities and their family members (conducted separately) who provide input on the potential applicability of the proposed GRAIDs in real world settings; (iv) a national consensus meeting with 21 expert panel members who review and vote on a final set of GRAIDs; and (v) an independent peer review of GRAIDs by national leaders from key disability organizations and professional groups through an online web portal.ResultsThis is an ongoing project, and to date, the process has been used to develop 11 GRAIDs to coincide with 11 of the 24 CDC obesity prevention strategies.ConclusionA set of methods and criteria have been developed to allow researchers, practitioners and government agencies to promote inclusive health promotion guidelines, strategies and practices for people with disabilities. Evidence-based programs developed for people without disabilities can now be adapted for people with disabilities using the GRAIDs framework.

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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 25%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Researcher 9 10%
Professor 5 6%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 23%
Social Sciences 19 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Psychology 10 11%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 15 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#4,560,129
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#838
of 1,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,630
of 238,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#13
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,798 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 53% 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 238,093 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 41 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 70% of its contemporaries.