↓ Skip to main content

Understanding feedback report uptake: process evaluation findings from a 13-month feedback intervention in long-term care settings

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Understanding feedback report uptake: process evaluation findings from a 13-month feedback intervention in long-term care settings
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0208-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne E Sales, Kimberly Fraser, Melba Andrea B Baylon, Hannah M O’Rourke, Gloria Gao, Tracey Bucknall, Suzanne Maisey

Abstract

Long-term care settings provide care to a large proportion of predominantly older, highly disabled adults across the United States and Canada. Managing and improving quality of care is challenging, in part because staffing is highly dependent on relatively non-professional health care aides and resources are limited. Feedback interventions in these settings are relatively rare, and there has been little published information about the process of feedback intervention. Our objectives were to describe the key components of uptake of the feedback reports, as well as other indicators of participant response to the intervention. We conducted this project in nine long-term care units in four facilities in Edmonton, Canada. We used mixed methods, including observations during a 13-month feedback report intervention with nine post-feedback survey cycles, to conduct a process evaluation of a feedback report intervention in these units. We included all facility-based direct care providers (staff) in the feedback report distribution and survey administration. We conducted descriptive analyses of the data from observations and surveys, presenting this in tabular and graphic form. We constructed a short scale to measure uptake of the feedback reports. Our analysis evaluated feedback report uptake by provider type over the 13 months of the intervention. We received a total of 1,080 survey responses over the period of the intervention, which varied by type of provider, facility, and survey month. Total number of reports distributed ranged from 103 in cycle 12 to 229 in cycle 3, although the method of delivery varied widely across the period, from 12% to 65% delivered directly to individuals and 15% to 84% left for later distribution. The key elements of feedback uptake, including receiving, reading, understanding, discussing, and reporting a perception that the reports were useful, varied by survey cycle and provider type, as well as by facility. Uptake, as we measured it, was consistently high overall, but varied widely by provider type and time period. We report detailed process data describing the aspects of uptake of a feedback report during an intensive, longitudinal feedback intervention in long-term care facilities. Uptake is a complex process for which we used multiple measures. We demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a complex longitudinal feedback intervention in relatively resource-poor long-term care facilities to a wider range of provider types than have been included in prior feedback interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 13 27%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 23%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 March 2015.
All research outputs
#6,780,483
of 11,344,222 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,027
of 1,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,517
of 209,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#32
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,344,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 209,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.