↓ Skip to main content

The dynamic influence of human resources on evidence-based intervention sustainability and population outcomes: an agent-based modeling approach

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
The dynamic influence of human resources on evidence-based intervention sustainability and population outcomes: an agent-based modeling approach
Published in
Implementation Science, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0767-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Virginia R. McKay, Lee D. Hoffer, Todd B. Combs, M. Margaret Dolcini

Abstract

Sustaining evidence-based interventions (EBIs) is an ongoing challenge for dissemination and implementation science in public health and social services. Characterizing the relationship among human resource capacity within an agency and subsequent population outcomes is an important step to improving our understanding of how EBIs are sustained. Although human resource capacity and population outcomes are theoretically related, examining them over time within real-world experiments is difficult. Simulation approaches, especially agent-based models, offer advantages that complement existing methods. We used an agent-based model to examine the relationships among human resources, EBI delivery, and population outcomes by simulating provision of an EBI through a hypothetical agency and its staff. We used data from existing studies examining a widely implemented HIV prevention intervention to inform simulation design, calibration, and validity. Once we developed a baseline model, we used the model as a simulated laboratory by systematically varying three human resource variables: the number of staff positions, the staff turnover rate, and timing in training. We tracked the subsequent influence on EBI delivery and the level of population risk over time to describe the overall and dynamic relationships among these variables. Higher overall levels of human resource capacity at an agency (more positions) led to more extensive EBI delivery over time and lowered population risk earlier in time. In simulations representing the typical human resource investments, substantial influences on population risk were visible after approximately 2 years and peaked around 4 years. Human resources, especially staff positions, have an important impact on EBI sustainability and ultimately population health. A minimum level of human resources based on the context (e.g., size of the initial population and characteristics of the EBI) is likely needed for an EBI to have a meaningful impact on population outcomes. Furthermore, this model demonstrates how ABMs may be leveraged to inform research design and assess the impact of EBI sustainability in practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 16%
Social Sciences 8 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Psychology 4 6%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 23 37%
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 09 March 2024.
All research outputs
#6,258,912
of 24,709,170 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,030
of 1,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,391
of 335,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#27
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,709,170 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,778 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 335,301 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.