↓ Skip to main content

Strengthening evaluation and implementation by specifying components of behaviour change interventions: a study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
246 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
507 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
Strengthening evaluation and implementation by specifying components of behaviour change interventions: a study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2011
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-6-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Michie, Charles Abraham, Martin P Eccles, Jill J Francis, Wendy Hardeman, Marie Johnston

Abstract

The importance of behaviour change in improving health is illustrated by the increasing investment by funding bodies in the development and evaluation of complex interventions to change population, patient, and practitioner behaviours. The development of effective interventions is hampered by the absence of a nomenclature to specify and report their content. This limits the possibility of replicating effective interventions, synthesising evidence, and understanding the causal mechanisms underlying behaviour change. In contrast, biomedical interventions are precisely specified (e.g., the pharmacological 'ingredients' of prescribed drugs, their dose and frequency of administration). For most complex interventions, the precise 'ingredients' are unknown; descriptions (e.g., 'behavioural counseling') can mean different things to different researchers or implementers. The lack of a method for specifying complex interventions undermines the precision of evidence syntheses of effectiveness, posing a problem for secondary, as well as primary, research.We aim to develop a reliable method of specifying intervention components ('techniques') aimed at changing behaviour.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 507 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 1%
Canada 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Malta 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 486 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 104 21%
Researcher 89 18%
Student > Master 69 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 6%
Student > Bachelor 30 6%
Other 104 21%
Unknown 80 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 111 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 78 15%
Social Sciences 76 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 9%
Computer Science 21 4%
Other 80 16%
Unknown 96 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,173,680
of 24,988,543 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#668
of 1,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,248
of 195,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,988,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,794 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 195,810 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 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.