↓ Skip to main content

Implementation and evaluation of the VA DPP clinical demonstration: protocol for a multi-site non-randomized hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2015
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 (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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 and evaluation of the VA DPP clinical demonstration: protocol for a multi-site non-randomized hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III trial
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0250-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura J Damschroder, Tannaz Moin, Santanu K Datta, Caitlin M Reardon, Nanette Steinle, Jane Weinreb, Charles J Billington, Matt L Maciejewski, William S Yancy, Maria Hughes, Fatima Makki, Caroline R Richardson

Abstract

The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) study showed that lifestyle intervention resulted in a 58% reduction in incidence of type 2 diabetes among individuals with prediabetes. Additional large randomized controlled trials have confirmed these results, and long-term follow-up has shown sustained benefit 10-20 years after the interventions ended. Diabetes is a common and costly disease, especially among Veterans, and despite strong evidence supporting the feasibility of type 2 diabetes prevention, the DPP has not been widely implemented. The first aim of this study will evaluate implementation of the Veterans Affairs (VA) DPP in three VA medical centers. The second aim will assess weight and hemoglobin A1c (A1c) outcomes, and the third aim will determine the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of implementation of the VA DPP from a health system perspective. This partnered multi-site non-randomized systematic assignment study will use a highly pragmatic hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III mixed methods study design. The implementation and administration of the VA DPP will be funded by clinical operations while the evaluation of the VA DPP will be funded by research grants. Seven hundred twenty eligible Veterans will be systematically assigned to the VA DPP clinical demonstration or the usual care VA MOVE!® weight management program. A multi-phase formative evaluation of the VA DPP implementation will be conducted. A theoretical program change model will be used to guide the implementation process and assess applicability and feasibility of the DPP for VA. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to guide qualitative data collection, analysis, and interpretation of barriers and facilitators to implementation. The RE-AIM framework will be used to assess Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of the VA DPP. Twelve-month weight and A1c change will be evaluated for the VA DPP compared to the VA MOVE! Mediation analyses will be conducted to identify whether program design differences impact outcomes. Findings from this pragmatic evaluation will be highly applicable to practitioners who are tasked with implementing the DPP in clinical settings. In addition, findings will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the VA DPP in the Veteran population.

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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 138 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Master 13 9%
Other 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 38 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Social Sciences 15 11%
Psychology 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 43 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 July 2019.
All research outputs
#5,688,619
of 23,306,612 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#977
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,440
of 265,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#34
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,306,612 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 265,537 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.