↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of a guideline for local health policy making by regional health services: exploring determinants of use by a web survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Implementation of a guideline for local health policy making by regional health services: exploring determinants of use by a web survey
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2499-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theo J.M. Kuunders, Monique A.M. Jacobs, Ien A.M. van de Goor, Marja J.H. van Bon-Martens, Hans A.M. van Oers, Theo G.W.M. Paulussen

Abstract

Previous evaluation showed insufficient use of a national guideline for integrated local health policy by Regional Health Services (RHS) in the Netherlands. The guideline focuses on five health topics and includes five checklists to support integrated municipal health policies. This study explores the determinants of guideline use by regional Dutch health professionals. A web survey was send to 304 RHS health professionals. The questionnaire was based on a theory- and research-based framework of determinants of public health innovations. Main outcomes were guideline use and completeness of use, defined as the number of health topics and checklists used. Associations between determinants and (completeness of) guideline use were explored by multivariate regression models. The survey was started by 120 professionals (39%). Finally, results from 73 respondents (24%) were eligible for analyses. All 28 Dutch RHS organizations were represented in the final dataset. About half of the respondents (48%) used the guideline. The average score for completeness of use (potential range 1-10) was 2.37 (sd = 1.78; range 1-7). Knowledge, perceived task responsibility and usability were significantly related to guideline use in univariate analyses. Only usability remained significant in the multivariate model on guideline use. Only self-efficacy accounted for significant proportions of variance in completeness of use. The results imply that strategies to improve guideline use by RHSs should primarily target perceived usability. Self-efficacy appeared the primary target for improving completeness of guideline use. Methods for targeting these determinants in RHSs are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Psychology 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 14 26%
Unknown 14 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 January 2021.
All research outputs
#5,578,935
of 19,957,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,708
of 6,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,261
of 338,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#234
of 568 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,957,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 338,434 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 568 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 56% of its contemporaries.