↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating broad-scale system change using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: challenges and strategies to overcome them

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Evaluating broad-scale system change using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: challenges and strategies to overcome them
Published in
BMC Research Notes, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3650-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer N. Hill, Sara M. Locatelli, Barbara G. Bokhour, Gemmae M. Fix, Jeffrey Solomon, Nora Mueller, Sherri L. LaVela

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the utility of the CFIR framework for evaluating broad-scale change by discussing the challenges to be addressed when planning the assessment of broad-scale change and the solutions developed by the evaluation team to address those challenges. The evaluation of implementation of Patient-centered Care and Cultural Transformation (PCC&CT) within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will be used as a demonstrative example. Patient-Centered Care (PCC) is personalized health care that considers a patient's circumstances and goals. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is working towards implementing PCC throughout its healthcare system, comprised of multiple interventions with a singular long-term goal of cultural transformation, however little is known about the factors influencing its implementation. This paper discusses the issues that arose using CFIR to qualitatively assess the factors influencing implementation of cultural transformation. Application of CFIR to this broad-scale evaluation revealed three strategies recommended for use in evaluating implementation of broad-scale change: (1) the need for adapted definitions for CFIR constructs (especially due to new application to broad-scale change), (2) the use of a mixed deductive-inductive approach with thematic coding to capture emergent themes not encompassed by CFIR, and (3) its use for expedited analysis and synthesis for rapid delivery of findings to operational partners. This paper is among the first to describe use of CFIR to guide the evaluation of a broad-scale transformation, as opposed to discrete interventions. The processes and strategies described in this paper provide a detailed example and structured approach that can be utilized and expanded upon by others evaluating implementation of broad-scale evaluations. Although CFIR was the framework selected for this evaluation, the strategies described in this paper including: use of adapted definitions, use of mixed deductive-inductive approach, and the approach for expedited analysis and synthesis can be transferred and tested with other frameworks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Other 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 26%
Social Sciences 8 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,849,289
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,733
of 4,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,529
of 341,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#48
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 341,702 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.