↓ Skip to main content

Integrating community-based health promotion programs and primary care: a mixed methods analysis of feasibility

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2018
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Integrating community-based health promotion programs and primary care: a mixed methods analysis of feasibility
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2866-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron L. Leppin, Karen Schaepe, Jason Egginton, Sara Dick, Megan Branda, Lori Christiansen, Nicole M. Burow, Charlene Gaw, Victor M. Montori

Abstract

Implementation of evidence-based programs (EBPs) for disease self-management and prevention is a policy priority. It is challenging to implement EBPs offered in community settings and to integrate them with healthcare. We sought to understand, categorize, and richly describe key challenges and opportunities related to integrating EBPs into routine primary care practice in the United States. As part of a parent, participatory action research project, we conducted a mixed methods evaluation guided by the PRECEDE implementation planning model in an 11-county region of Southeast Minnesota. Our community-partnered research team interviewed and surveyed 15 and 190 primary care clinicians and 15 and 88 non-clinician stakeholders, respectively. We coded interviews according to pre-defined PRECEDE factors and by participant type and searched for emerging themes. We then categorized survey items-before looking at participant responses-according to their ability to generate further evidence supporting the PRECEDE factors and emerging themes. We statistically summarized data within and across responder groups. When consistent, we merged these with qualitative insight. The themes we found, "Two Systems, Two Worlds," "Not My Job," and "Seeing is Believing," highlighted the disparate nature of prescribed activities that different stakeholders do to contribute to health. For instance, primary care clinicians felt pressured to focus on activities of diagnosis and treatment and did not imagine ways in which EBPs could contribute to either. Quantitative analyses supported aspects of all three themes, highlighting clinicians' limited trust in community-placed activities, and the need for tailored education and system and policy-level changes to support their integration with primary care. Primary care and community-based programs exist in disconnected worlds. Without urgent and intentional efforts to bridge well-care and sick-care, interventions that support people's efforts to be and stay well in their communities will remain outside of-if not at odds with-healthcare.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 27 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 17%
Social Sciences 11 11%
Psychology 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 34 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 26 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,811,306
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#662
of 7,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,546
of 440,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#25
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 440,194 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.