↓ Skip to main content

Identifying the determinants of use of the G

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Identifying the determinants of use of the G&G interventions for older adults in health and social care: protocol of a multilevel approach
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1262-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daphne Kuiper, Martine M Goedendorp, Robbert Sanderman, Sijmen A Reijneveld, Nardi Steverink

Abstract

Despite aging-related losses, many older adults are able to maintain high levels of subjective well-being. However, not all older adults are able to self-manage and adapt. The GRIP&GLEAM [Dutch: GRIP&GLANS] (G&G) interventions have shown to significantly improve self-management ability, well-being and loneliness in older adults. Actual use of the evidence-based G&G interventions, however, remains limited as long as the interplay between implementation factors at different hierarchical stakeholder levels is poorly understood. The aim of the study is to identify the determinants of successful implementation of the G&G interventions. The study is performed in health and social care organizations in the northern part of the Netherlands. The degree of implementation success is operationalized by four parameters: use (yes/no), pace (time to initial use), performance (extent of use) and prolongation (intention to continue use). Based on the Fleuren model, factors at four hierarchical stakeholder levels (i.e. target group, professionals, organizations and financial-political context) are assessed at three measurement points in 2 years. The nested data are analyzed applying multilevel modeling techniques. In this study, health and social care organizations are considered to be part of multilevel functional systems, in which factors at different hierarchical stakeholder levels impede or facilitate use of the G&G interventions. Strengths of the study are the multifaceted measurement of use, and the multilevel approach in identifying the determinants. The study will contribute to the development of ecologically valid implementation strategies of the G&G interventions and comparable evidence-based practices.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Engineering 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 11 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 July 2015.
All research outputs
#6,963,642
of 11,234,828 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,271
of 2,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,722
of 234,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#30
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,234,828 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,461 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 234,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.