↓ Skip to main content

School health implementation tools: a mixed methods evaluation of factors influencing their use

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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
School health implementation tools: a mixed methods evaluation of factors influencing their use
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0738-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Leeman, Jean L. Wiecha, Maihan Vu, Jonathan L. Blitstein, Sallie Allgood, Sarah Lee, Caitlin Merlo

Abstract

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) develops tools to support implementation of evidence-based interventions for school health. To advance understanding of factors influencing the use of these implementation tools, we conducted an evaluation of state, school district, and local school staffs' use of four CDC tools to support implementation of physical activity, nutrition, health education, and parent engagement. Two frameworks guided the evaluation: Interactive Systems Framework (ISF) for Dissemination and Implementation and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The evaluation applied a mixed methods, cross-sectional design that included online surveys (n = 69 state staff from 43 states), phone interviews (n = 13 state staff from 6 states), and in-person interviews (n = 90 district and school staff from 8 districts in 5 states). Descriptive analyses were applied to surveys and content analysis to interviews. The survey found that the majority of state staff surveyed was aware of three of the CDC tools but most were knowledgeable and confident in their ability to use only two. These same two tools were the ones for which states were most likely to have provided training and technical assistance in the past year. Interviews provided insight into how tools were used and why use varied, with themes organized within the ISF domain "support strategies" (e.g., training, technical assistance) and four CFIR domains: (1) characteristics of tools, (2) inner setting, (3) outer setting, and (4) individuals. Overall, tools were valued for the credibility of their source (CDC) and evidence strength and quality. Respondents reported that tools were too complex for use by school staff. However, if tools were adaptable and compatible with inner and outer setting factors, state and district staff were willing and able to adapt tools for school use. Implementation tools are essential to supporting broad-scale implementation of evidence-based interventions. This study illustrates how CFIR and ISF might be applied to evaluate factors influencing tools' use and provides recommendations for designing tools to fit within the multi-tiered systems involved in promoting, supporting, and implementing evidence-based interventions in schools. Findings have relevance for the design of implementation tools for use by other multi-tiered systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 18%
Other 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Professor 5 7%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Psychology 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 20 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,545,904
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#881
of 1,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,743
of 332,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#30
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 332,278 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.