↓ Skip to main content

Implementation science in cancer prevention and control: a decade of grant funding by the National Cancer Institute and future directions

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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 science in cancer prevention and control: a decade of grant funding by the National Cancer Institute and future directions
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0200-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gila Neta, Michael A Sanchez, David A Chambers, Siobhan M Phillips, Bryan Leyva, Laurie Cynkin, Margaret M Farrell, Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts, Cynthia Vinson

Abstract

BackgroundThe National Cancer Institute (NCI) has supported implementation science for over a decade. We explore the application of implementation science across the cancer control continuum, including prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship.MethodsWe reviewed funding trends of implementation science grants funded by the NCI between 2000 and 2012. We assessed study characteristics including cancer topic, position on the T2¿T4 translational continuum, intended use of frameworks, study design, settings, methods, and replication and cost considerations.ResultsWe identified 67 NCI grant awards having an implementation science focus. R01 was the most common mechanism, and the total number of all awards increased from four in 2003 to 15 in 2012. Prevention grants were most frequent (49.3%) and cancer treatment least common (4.5%). Diffusion of Innovations and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) were the most widely reported frameworks, but it is unclear how implementation science models informed planned study measures. Most grants (69%) included mixed methods, and half reported replication and cost considerations (49.3%).ConclusionsImplementation science in cancer research is active and diverse but could be enhanced by greater focus on measures development, assessment of how conceptual frameworks and their constructs lead to improved dissemination and implementation outcomes, and harmonization of measures that are valid, reliable, and practical across multiple settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 80 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Professor 7 9%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 30%
Social Sciences 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Psychology 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 19 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 April 2016.
All research outputs
#6,273,343
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#998
of 1,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,232
of 364,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#22
of 57 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 75th 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 is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 364,465 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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 63% of its contemporaries.