↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of evidence-based weekend service recommendations for allied health managers: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Implementation of evidence-based weekend service recommendations for allied health managers: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0752-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mitchell N. Sarkies, Jennifer White, Meg E. Morris, Nicholas F. Taylor, Cylie Williams, Lisa O’Brien, Jenny Martin, Anne Bardoel, Anne E. Holland, Leeanne Carey, Elizabeth H. Skinner, Kelly-Ann Bowles, Kellie Grant, Kathleen Philip, Terry P. Haines

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that health policy and practice do not always reflect current research evidence. Whether knowledge transfer from research to practice is more successful when specific implementation approaches are used remains unclear. A model to assist engagement of allied health managers and clinicians with research implementation could involve disseminating evidence-based policy recommendations, along with the use of knowledge brokers. We developed such a model to aid decision-making for the provision of weekend allied health services. This protocol outlines the design and methods for a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the success of research implementation strategies to promote evidence-informed weekend allied health resource allocation decisions, especially in hospital managers. This multi-centre study will be a three-group parallel cluster randomised controlled trial. Allied health managers from Australian and New Zealand hospitals will be randomised to receive either (1) an evidence-based policy recommendation document to guide weekend allied health resource allocation decisions, (2) the same policy recommendation document with support from a knowledge broker to help implement weekend allied health policy recommendations, or (3) a usual practice control group. The primary outcome will be alignment of weekend allied health service provision with policy recommendations. This will be measured by the number of allied health service events (occasions of service) occurring on weekends as a proportion of total allied health service events for the relevant hospital wards at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Evidence-based policy recommendation documents communicate key research findings in an accessible format. This comparatively low-cost research implementation strategy could be combined with using a knowledge broker to work collaboratively with decision-makers to promote knowledge transfer. The results will assist managers to make decisions on resource allocation, based on evidence. More generally, the findings will inform the development of an allied health model for translating research into practice. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ( ACTRN12618000029291 ). Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1205-2621.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Professor 6 7%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 36 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 38 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 October 2018.
All research outputs
#6,628,415
of 24,492,652 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,078
of 1,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,396
of 331,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#36
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,492,652 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,768 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 331,048 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 67% 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 is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.