↓ Skip to main content

Comparing traditional and participatory dissemination of a shared decision making intervention (ADAPT-NC): a cluster randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Comparing traditional and participatory dissemination of a shared decision making intervention (ADAPT-NC): a cluster randomized trial
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0158-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hazel Tapp, Andrew McWilliams, Thomas Ludden, Lindsay Kuhn, Yhenneko Taylor, Thamara Alkhazraji, Jacquie Halladay, Diane Derkowski, Sveta Mohanan, Michael Dulin

Abstract

BackgroundAsthma is a common disease that affects people of all ages and has significant morbidity and mortality. Poor outcomes and health disparities related to asthma result in part from the difficulty of disseminating new evidence and care delivery methods such as shared decision making (SDM) into clinical practice.This 3-year study explores the ideal framework for rapid dissemination of an evidence-based SDM toolkit for asthma management. The study leverages a partnership between the North Carolina (NC) statewide Medicaid network and the NC Network Consortium of practice-based research networks (PBRN).Methods/designThis non-blinded study will randomize 30 primary care clinics in NC stratified by four PBRNs. We will test dissemination across these practices using a facilitator-led participatory approach to dissemination (FLOW), a novel method of participatory dissemination involving key principles of community-based participatory research, and a more typical ¿lunch and learn¿ dissemination method. Specifically, we will use cluster randomization to assign each of the 30 practices to one of three arms: (1) control, no dissemination; (2) traditional dissemination, one didactic session a year and distribution of educational material; and (3) FLOW dissemination. We hypothesize that at the unit of randomization, the clinic, patients in the FLOW dissemination arm will be more likely to share in their treatment decisions compared to patients in the traditional dissemination or control arms. All outcomes will be measured at the level of the clinic. Adoption of the SDM approach will be evaluated by 1) asthma exacerbations, 2) level of patient involvement in the decision making process, and 3) qualitative assessments from patients and providers.The research question is: What dissemination strategy most effectively increases practice level adoption of a shared decision making approach to asthma management? This study will provide important data to support best practices in dissemination of an evidence-based toolkit and implementation of shared decision making into primary care practices.Trial registrationThe trial was registered on January 27, 2014 through the United States National Institutes of Health¿s ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02047929 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02047929) and funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 19%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 29 26%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Psychology 8 7%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 32 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 July 2015.
All research outputs
#7,755,290
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,251
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,755
of 262,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#39
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 262,425 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.