↓ Skip to main content

Supporting the implementation of stroke quality-based procedures (QBPs): a mixed methods evaluation to identify knowledge translation activities, knowledge translation interventions, and determinants…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Supporting the implementation of stroke quality-based procedures (QBPs): a mixed methods evaluation to identify knowledge translation activities, knowledge translation interventions, and determinants of implementation across Ontario
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3220-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia E. Moore, Christine Marquez, Kristen Dufresne, Charmalee Harris, Jamie Park, Radha Sayal, Monika Kastner, Linda Kelloway, Sarah E. P. Munce, Mark Bayley, Matthew Meyer, Sharon E. Straus

Abstract

In 2013, Health Quality Ontario introduced stroke quality-based procedures (QBPs) to promote use of evidence-based practices for patients with stroke in Ontario hospitals. The study purpose was to: (a) describe the knowledge translation (KT) interventions used to support stroke QBP implementation, (b) assess differences in the planned and reported KT interventions by region, and (c) explore determinants perceived to have affected outcomes. A mixed methods approach was used to evaluate: activities, KT interventions, and determinants of stroke QBP implementation. In Phase 1, a document review of regional stroke network work plans was conducted to capture the types of KT activities planned at a regional level; these were mapped to the knowledge to action framework. In Phase 2, we surveyed Ontario hospital staff to identify the KT interventions used to support QBP implementation at an organizational level. Phase 3 involved qualitative interviews with staff to elucidate deeper understanding of survey findings. Of the 446 activities identified in the document review, the most common were 'dissemination' (24.2%; n = 108), 'implementation' (22.6%; n = 101), 'implementation planning' (15.0%; n = 67), and 'knowledge tools' (10.5%; n = 47). Based on survey data (n = 489), commonly reported KT interventions included: staff educational meetings (43.1%; n = 154), champions (41.5%; n = 148), and staff educational materials (40.6%; n = 145). Survey participants perceived stroke QBP implementation to be successful (median = 5/7; interquartile range = 4-6; range = 1-7; n = 335). Forty-four people (e.g., managers, senior leaders, regional stroke network representatives, and frontline staff) participated in interviews/focus groups. Perceived facilitators to QBP implementation included networks and collaborations with external organizations, leadership engagement, and hospital prioritization of stroke QBP. Perceived barriers included lack of funding, size of the hospital (i.e., too small), lack of resources (i.e., staff and time), and simultaneous implementation of other QBPs. Information on the types of activities and KT interventions used to support stroke QBP implementation and the key determinants influencing uptake of stroke QBPs can be used to inform future activities including the development and evaluation of interventions to address barriers and leverage facilitators.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 14%
Psychology 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 27 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 2018.
All research outputs
#20,111,403
of 24,723,421 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,145
of 8,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#259,250
of 333,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#194
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,723,421 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 333,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.