↓ Skip to main content

Developing standards for reporting implementation studies of complex interventions (StaRI): a systematic review and e-Delphi

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
67 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Developing standards for reporting implementation studies of complex interventions (StaRI): a systematic review and e-Delphi
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0235-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilary Pinnock, Eleni Epiphaniou, Aziz Sheikh, Chris Griffiths, Sandra Eldridge, Peter Craig, Stephanie JC Taylor

Abstract

Dissemination and implementation of health care interventions are currently hampered by the variable quality of reporting of implementation research. Reporting of other study types has been improved by the introduction of reporting standards (e.g. CONSORT). We are therefore developing guidelines for reporting implementation studies (StaRI). Using established methodology for developing health research reporting guidelines, we systematically reviewed the literature to generate items for a checklist of reporting standards. We then recruited an international, multidisciplinary panel for an e-Delphi consensus-building exercise which comprised an initial open round to revise/suggest a list of potential items for scoring in the subsequent two scoring rounds (scale 1 to 9). Consensus was defined a priori as 80% agreement with the priority scores of 7, 8, or 9. We identified eight papers from the literature review from which we derived 36 potential items. We recruited 23 experts to the e-Delphi panel. Open round comments resulted in revisions, and 47 items went forward to the scoring rounds. Thirty-five items achieved consensus: 19 achieved 100% agreement. Prioritised items addressed the need to: provide an evidence-based justification for implementation; describe the setting, professional/service requirements, eligible population and intervention in detail; measure process and clinical outcomes at population level (using routine data); report impact on health care resources; describe local adaptations to the implementation strategy and describe barriers/facilitators. Over-arching themes from the free-text comments included balancing the need for detailed descriptions of interventions with publishing constraints, addressing the dual aims of reporting on the process of implementation and effectiveness of the intervention and monitoring fidelity to an intervention whilst encouraging adaptation to suit diverse local contexts. We have identified priority items for reporting implementation studies and key issues for further discussion. An international, multidisciplinary workshop, where participants will debate the issues raised, clarify specific items and develop StaRI standards that fit within the suite of EQUATOR reporting guidelines, is planned. The protocol is registered with Equator: http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#17 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 146 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 18%
Student > Master 21 14%
Other 18 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 17 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 16%
Social Sciences 18 12%
Psychology 13 9%
Neuroscience 2 1%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 22 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 09 March 2017.
All research outputs
#626,416
of 17,362,547 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#127
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,626
of 230,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,362,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. 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 230,984 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them