↓ Skip to main content

Enhancing outreach for persons with serious mental illness: 12-month results from a cluster randomized trial of an adaptive implementation strategy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Enhancing outreach for persons with serious mental illness: 12-month results from a cluster randomized trial of an adaptive implementation strategy
Published in
Implementation Science, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0163-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy M Kilbourne, Daniel Almirall, David E Goodrich, Zongshan Lai, Kristen M Abraham, Kristina M Nord, Nicholas W Bowersox

Abstract

BackgroundFew implementation strategies have been empirically tested for their effectiveness in improving uptake of evidence-based treatments or programs. This study compared the effectiveness of an immediate versus delayed enhanced implementation strategy (Enhanced Replicating Effective Programs (REP)) for providers at Veterans Health Administration (VA) outpatient facilities (sites) on improved uptake of an outreach program (Re-Engage) among sites not initially responding to a standard implementation strategy.MethodsOne mental health provider from each U.S. VA site (N¿=¿158) was initially given a REP-based package and training program in Re-Engage. The Re-Engage program involved giving each site provider a list of patients with serious mental illness who had not been seen at their facility for at least a year, requesting that providers contact these patients, assessing patient clinical status, and where appropriate, facilitating appointments to VA health services. At month 6, sites considered non-responsive (N¿=¿89, total of 3,075 patients), defined as providers updating documentation for less than <80% of patients on their list, were randomized to two adaptive implementation interventions: Enhanced REP (provider coaching; N¿=¿40 sites) for 6 months followed by Standard REP for 6 months; versus continued Standard REP (N¿=¿49 sites) for 6 months followed by 6 months of Enhanced REP for sites still not responding. Outcomes included patient-level Re-Engage implementation and utilization.ResultsPatients from sites that were randomized to receive Enhanced REP immediately compared to Standard REP were more likely to have a completed contact (adjusted OR¿=¿2.13; 95% CI: 1.09¿4.19, P¿=¿0.02). There were no differences in patient-level utilization between Enhanced and Standard REP sites.ConclusionsEnhanced REP was associated with greater Re-Engage program uptake (completed contacts) among sites not responding to a standard implementation strategy. Further research is needed to determine whether national implementation of Facilitation results in tangible changes in patient-level outcomes.Trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN21059161.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 70 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Master 6 8%
Professor 6 8%
Other 18 25%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Psychology 10 14%
Social Sciences 9 13%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 20 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 13 January 2015.
All research outputs
#14,550,636
of 25,295,968 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,405
of 1,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,973
of 365,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#46
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,295,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,796 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 365,325 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.