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 |
Evaluating implementation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevention guidelines in spinal cord injury centers using the PARIHS framework: a mixed methods study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-015-0318-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Salva N. Balbale, Jennifer N. Hill, Marylou Guihan, Timothy P. Hogan, Kenzie A. Cameron, Barry Goldstein, Charlesnika T. Evans |
| Abstract |
To prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Spinal Cord Injury and Disorder (SCI/D) Centers, the "Guidelines for Implementation of MRSA Prevention Initiative in the Spinal Cord Injury Centers" were released in July 2008 in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System. The purpose of this study was to use the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Systems (PARiHS) framework to evaluate the experiences of implementation of SCI/D MRSA prevention guidelines in VA SCI/D Centers approximately 2-3 years after the guidelines were released. Mixed methods were used across two phases in this study. The first phase included an anonymous, web-based cross-sectional survey administered to providers at all 24 VA SCI/D Centers. The second phase included semi-structured telephone interviews with providers at 9 SCI/D Centers. The PARiHS framework was used as the foundation of both the survey questions and semi-structured interview guide. The survey was completed by 295 SCI/D providers (43.8 % response rate) from 22 of the 24 SCI/D Centers (91.7 % participation rate). Respondents included nurses (57.3 %), therapists (24.4 %), physicians (11.1 %), physician assistants (3.4 %), and other health care professionals (3.8 %). Approximately 36 % of the SCI/D providers surveyed had not seen, did not remember seeing, or had never heard of the MRSA SCI/D guidelines, whereas 42.3 % of providers reported that the MRSA SCI/D guidelines were fully implemented in their SCI/D Center. Data revealed numerous barriers and facilitators to guideline implementation. Facilitators included enhanced leadership support and provider education, focused guideline dissemination to reach SCI/D providers, and strong perceived evidence supporting the guidelines. Barriers included lack of awareness of the guidelines among physical therapists and physician assistants and challenges in cohorting/isolating MRSA-positive patients and following contact precautions. Successful implementation of MRSA infection prevention guidelines in SCI/D settings requires (1) guideline dissemination that reaches the full range of SCI/D providers working in inpatient, outpatient, and other care settings, (2) provider education that is frequent and systematic, (3) strong leadership support, and (4) that barriers unique to the recommendations are addressed. These findings may be used to inform selection of implementation strategies and optimize infection prevention beyond MRSA as well as in other specialty care populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 States | 1 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Researcher | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 28 | 26% |
| Unknown | 25 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 22% |
| Unknown | 24 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 March 2016.
All research outputs
#8,331,653
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,272
of 1,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,702
of 280,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#34
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
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 is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 280,609 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.