↓ Skip to main content

The impact of inter-organizational alignment (IOA) on implementation outcomes: evaluating unique and shared organizational influences in education sector mental health

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
32 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
The impact of inter-organizational alignment (IOA) on implementation outcomes: evaluating unique and shared organizational influences in education sector mental health
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0721-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron R. Lyon, Kelly Whitaker, Jill Locke, Clayton R. Cook, Kevin M. King, Mylien Duong, Chayna Davis, Mark D. Weist, Mark G. Ehrhart, Gregory A. Aarons

Abstract

Integrated healthcare delivered by work groups in nontraditional service settings is increasingly common, yet contemporary implementation frameworks typically assume a single organization-or organizational unit-within which system-level processes influence service quality and implementation success. Recent implementation frameworks predict that inter-organizational alignment (i.e., similarity in values, characteristics, activities related to implementation across organizations) may facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP), but few studies have evaluated this premise. This study's aims examine the impact of overlapping organizational contexts by evaluating the implementation contexts of externally employed mental health clinicians working in schools-the most common integrated service delivery setting for children and adolescents. Aim 1 is to estimate the effects of unique intra-organizational implementation contexts and combined inter-organizational alignment on implementation outcomes. Aim 2 is to examine the underlying mechanisms through which inter-organizational alignment facilitates or hinders EBP implementation. This study will conduct sequential, exploratory mixed-methods research to evaluate the intra- and inter-organizational implementation contexts of schools and the external community-based organizations that most often employ school-based mental health clinicians, as they relate to mental health EBP implementation. Aim 1 will involve quantitative surveys with school-based, externally-employed mental health clinicians, their supervisors, and proximal school-employed staff (total n = 120 participants) to estimate the effects of each organization's general and implementation-specific organizational factors (e.g., climate, leadership) on implementation outcomes (fidelity, acceptability, appropriateness) and assess the moderating role of the degree of clinician embeddedness in the school setting. Aim 2 will explore the mechanisms through which inter-organizational alignment influences implementation outcomes by presenting the results of Aim 1 surveys to school-based clinicians (n = 30) and conducting semi-structured qualitative interviews. Qualitative data will be evaluated using an integrative inductive and deductive approach. The study aims are expected to identify intra- and inter-organizational constructs that are most instrumental to EBP implementation success in school-based integrated care settings and illuminate mechanisms that may account for the influence of inter-organizational alignment. In addition to improving school-based mental health, these findings will spur future implementation science that considers the relationships across organizations and optimize the capacity of implementation science to guide practice in increasingly complex systems of care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 151 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 13%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Master 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 43 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 19%
Social Sciences 21 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 53 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 04 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,909,024
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#353
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,496
of 448,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#14
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 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 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 448,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 72% of its contemporaries.