↓ Skip to main content

The prevention and management of chronic disease in primary care: recommendations from a knowledge translation meeting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
The prevention and management of chronic disease in primary care: recommendations from a knowledge translation meeting
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1514-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Ahmed, Patrick Ware, Regina Visca, Celine Bareil, Maud-Christine Chouinard, Johanne Desforges, Roderick Finlayson, Martin Fortin, Josée Gauthier, Dominique Grimard, Maryse Guay, Catherine Hudon, Lyne Lalonde, Lise Lévesque, Cecile Michaud, Sylvie Provost, Tim Sutton, Pierre Tousignant, Stella Travers, Mark Ware, Amede Gogovor

Abstract

Seven chronic disease prevention and management programs were implemented across Quebec with funding support from a provincial-private industry funding initiative. Given the complexity of implementing integrated primary care chronic disease management programs, a knowledge transfer meeting was held to share experiences across programs and synthesize common challenges and success factors for implementation. The knowledge translation meeting was held in February 2014 in Montreal, Canada. Seventy-five participants consisting of 15 clinicians, 14 researchers, 31 knowledge users, and 15 representatives from the funding agencies were broken up into groups of 10 or 11 and conducted a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis on either the implementation or the evaluation of these chronic disease management programs. Results were reported back to the larger group during a plenary and recorded. Audiotapes were transcribed and summarized using pragmatic thematic analysis. Strengths to leverage for the implementation of the seven programs include: (1) synergy between clinical and research teams; (2) stakeholders working together; (3) motivation of clinicians; and (4) the fact that the programs are evidence-based. Weaknesses to address include: (1) insufficient resources; (2) organizational change within the clinical sites; (3) lack of referrals from primary care physicians; and (4) lack of access to programs. Strengths to leverage for the evaluation of these programs include: (1) engagement of stakeholders and (2) sharing of knowledge between clinical sites. Weaknesses to address include: (1) lack of referrals; (2) difficulties with data collection; and (3) difficulties in identifying indicators and control groups. Opportunities for both themes include: (1) fostering new and existing partnerships and stakeholder relations; (2) seizing funding opportunities; (3) knowledge transfer; (4) supporting the transformation of professional roles; (5) expand the use of health information technology; and (6) conduct cost evaluations. Fifteen recommendations related to mobilisation of primary care physicians, support for the transformation of professional roles, and strategies aimed at facilitating the implementation and evaluation of chronic disease management programs were formulated based on the discussions at this knowledge translation event. The results from this knowledge translation day will help inform the sustainability of these seven chronic disease management programs in Quebec and the implementation and evaluation of similar programs elsewhere.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 31 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 16%
Social Sciences 11 10%
Psychology 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 30 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,294,248
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,559
of 4,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,158
of 279,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#146
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 279,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.