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 |
Development, inter-rater reliability and feasibility of a checklist to assess implementation (Ch-IMP) in systematic reviews: the case of provider-based prevention and treatment programs targeting children and youth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-015-0037-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Margaret Cargo, Ivana Stankov, James Thomas, Michael Saini, Patricia Rogers, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Karin Hannes |
| Abstract |
Several papers report deficiencies in the reporting of information about the implementation of interventions in clinical trials. Information about implementation is also required in systematic reviews of complex interventions to facilitate the translation and uptake of evidence of provider-based prevention and treatment programs. To capture whether and how implementation is assessed within systematic effectiveness reviews, we developed a checklist for implementation (Ch-IMP) and piloted it in a cohort of reviews on provider-based prevention and treatment interventions for children and young people. This paper reports on the inter-rater reliability, feasibility and reasons for discrepant ratings. Checklist domains were informed by a framework for program theory; items within domains were generated from a literature review. The checklist was pilot-tested on a cohort of 27 effectiveness reviews targeting children and youth. Two raters independently extracted information on 47 items. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using percentage agreement and unweighted kappa coefficients. Reasons for discrepant ratings were content analysed. Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.37 to 1.00 and were not influenced by one-sided bias. Most kappa values were classified as excellent (n = 20) or good (n = 17) with a few items categorised as fair (n = 7) or poor (n = 1). Prevalence-adjusted kappa coefficients indicate good or excellent agreement for all but one item. Four areas contributed to scoring discrepancies: 1) clarity or sufficiency of information provided in the review; 2) information missed in the review; 3) issues encountered with the tool; and 4) issues encountered at the review level. Use of the tool demands time investment and it requires adjustment to improve its feasibility for wider use. The case of provider-based prevention and treatment interventions showed relevancy in developing and piloting the Ch-IMP as a useful tool for assessing the extent to which systematic reviews assess the quality of implementation. The checklist could be used by authors and editors to improve the quality of systematic reviews, and shows promise as a pedagogical tool to facilitate the extraction and reporting of implementation characteristics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 | 9 | 30% |
| Australia | 3 | 10% |
| Canada | 3 | 10% |
| Ireland | 2 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 50% |
| Scientists | 11 | 37% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 9 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 13% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 34% |
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 05 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,204,170
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#299
of 2,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,462
of 279,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 28 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 2,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 279,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.