↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms of implementing public health interventions: a pooled causal mediation analysis of randomised trials

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Mechanisms of implementing public health interventions: a pooled causal mediation analysis of randomised trials
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0734-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hopin Lee, Alix Hall, Nicole Nathan, Kathryn L. Reilly, Kirsty Seward, Christopher M. Williams, Serene Yoong, Meghan Finch, John Wiggers, Luke Wolfenden

Abstract

The World Health Organization recommends that nations implement evidence-based nutritional guidelines and policies in settings such as schools and childcare services to improve public health nutrition. Understanding the causal mechanism by which implementation strategies exert their effects could enhance guideline implementation. The aim of this study was to assess the mechanisms by which implementation strategies improved schools and childcare services' adherence to nutrition guidelines. We conducted a mechanism evaluation of an aggregated dataset generated from three randomised controlled trials conducted in schools and childcare services in New South Wales, Australia. Each trial examined the impact of implementation strategies that targeted Theoretical Domains Framework constructs including knowledge, skills, professional role and identity, environmental context and resources. We pooled aggregated organisation level data from each trial, including quantitative assessments of the Theoretical Domains Framework constructs, as well as measures of school or childcare nutrition guideline compliance, the primary implementation outcome. We used causal mediation analysis to estimate the average indirect and direct effects of the implementation strategies and assessed the robustness of our findings to varying levels of unmeasured and unknown confounding. We included 121 schools or childcare services in the pooled analysis: 79 allocated to receive guideline and policy implementation strategies and 42 to usual practice. Overall, the interventions improved compliance (odds ratio = 6.64; 95% CI [2.58 to 19.09]); however, the intervention effect was not mediated by any of the four targeted Theoretical Domains Framework constructs (average causal mediation effects through knowledge = - 0.00 [- 0.05 to 0.04], skills = 0.01 [- 0.02 to 0.07], professional role and identity = 0.00 [- 0.03 to 0.03] and environmental context and resources = 0.00 [- 0.02 to 0.06]). The intervention had no significant effect on the four targeted Theoretical Domains Framework constructs, and the constructs were not associated with school or childcare nutrition guideline compliance. Potentially, this lack of effect could be explained by imprecise measurement of the mediators. Alternatively, it is likely that that the interventions were operating via alternative mechanisms that were not captured by the four Theoretical Domains Framework constructs we explored. Even though public health implementation strategies led to meaningful improvements in school or childcare nutrition guideline compliance, these effects were not mediated by key targeted constructs of the Theoretical Domains Framework. Future research should explore the mechanistic role of other Theoretical Domains Framework constructs and evaluate system-level mechanisms informed by an ecological framework. All trials were prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12613000543785 . Registered 15/05/2013; ACTRN12614001148662 . Registered 30/10/2014; ACTRN12615001032549 . Registered 1/10/2015).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 24 25%
Unknown 24 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Psychology 5 5%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 30 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 08 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,262,896
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#494
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,968
of 333,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#18
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 333,929 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 57% of its contemporaries.