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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Health system context and implementation of evidence-based practices—development and validation of the Context Assessment for Community Health (COACH) tool for low- and middle-income settings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-015-0305-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Bergström, Sarah Skeen, Duong M. Duc, Elmer Zelaya Blandon, Carole Estabrooks, Petter Gustavsson, Dinh Thi Phuong Hoa, Carina Källestål, Mats Målqvist, Nguyen Thu Nga, Lars-Åke Persson, Jesmin Pervin, Stefan Peterson, Anisur Rahman, Katarina Selling, Janet E. Squires, Mark Tomlinson, Peter Waiswa, Lars Wallin |
| Abstract |
The gap between what is known and what is practiced results in health service users not benefitting from advances in healthcare, and in unnecessary costs. A supportive context is considered a key element for successful implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP). There were no tools available for the systematic mapping of aspects of organizational context influencing the implementation of EBPs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Thus, this project aimed to develop and psychometrically validate a tool for this purpose. The development of the Context Assessment for Community Health (COACH) tool was premised on the context dimension in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, and is a derivative product of the Alberta Context Tool. Its development was undertaken in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Uganda, South Africa and Nicaragua in six phases: (1) defining dimensions and draft tool development, (2) content validity amongst in-country expert panels, (3) content validity amongst international experts, (4) response process validity, (5) translation and (6) evaluation of psychometric properties amongst 690 health workers in the five countries. The tool was validated for use amongst physicians, nurse/midwives and community health workers. The six phases of development resulted in a good fit between the theoretical dimensions of the COACH tool and its psychometric properties. The tool has 49 items measuring eight aspects of context: Resources, Community engagement, Commitment to work, Informal payment, Leadership, Work culture, Monitoring services for action and Sources of knowledge. Aspects of organizational context that were identified as influencing the implementation of EBPs in high-income settings were also found to be relevant in LMICs. However, there were additional aspects of context of relevance in LMICs specifically Resources, Community engagement, Commitment to work and Informal payment. Use of the COACH tool will allow for systematic description of the local healthcare context prior implementing healthcare interventions to allow for tailoring implementation strategies or as part of the evaluation of implementing healthcare interventions and thus allow for deeper insights into the process of implementing EBPs in LMICs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 12% |
| Australia | 3 | 12% |
| Canada | 2 | 8% |
| South Africa | 2 | 8% |
| Vietnam | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 50% |
| Scientists | 10 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 284 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 277 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 48 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 14% |
| Researcher | 34 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 65 | 23% |
| Unknown | 67 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 69 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 30 | 11% |
| Psychology | 13 | 5% |
| Engineering | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 46 | 16% |
| Unknown | 83 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 15 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,166,053
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#416
of 1,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,092
of 275,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#9
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
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 275,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.