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 |
A practice change intervention to improve antenatal care addressing alcohol consumption by women during pregnancy: research protocol for a randomised stepped-wedge cluster trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-018-0806-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melanie Kingsland, Emma Doherty, Amy E. Anderson, Kristy Crooks, Belinda Tully, Danika Tremain, Tracey W. Tsang, John Attia, Luke Wolfenden, Adrian J. Dunlop, Nicole Bennett, Mandy Hunter, Sarah Ward, Penny Reeves, Ian Symonds, Chris Rissel, Carol Azzopardi, Andrew Searles, Karen Gillham, Elizabeth J. Elliott, John Wiggers |
| Abstract |
Despite clinical guideline recommendations, implementation of antenatal care addressing alcohol consumption by pregnant women is limited. Implementation strategies addressing barriers to such care may be effective in increasing care provision. The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness, cost and cost-effectiveness of a multi-strategy practice change intervention in increasing antenatal care addressing the consumption of alcohol by pregnant women. The study will be a randomised, stepped-wedge controlled trial conducted in three sectors in a health district in New South Wales, Australia. Stepped implementation of a practice change intervention will be delivered to sectors in a random order to support the introduction of a model of care for addressing alcohol consumption by pregnant women. A staged process was undertaken to develop the implementation strategies, which comprise of: leadership support, local clinical practice guidelines, electronic prompts and reminders, opinion leaders, academic detailing (audit and feedback), educational meetings and educational materials, and performance monitoring. Repeated cross-sectional outcome data will be gathered weekly across all sectors for the study duration. The primary outcome measures are the proportion of antenatal appointments at 'booking in', 27-28 weeks gestation and 35-36 weeks gestation for which women report (1) being assessed for alcohol consumption, (2) being provided with brief advice related to alcohol consumption during pregnancy, (3) receiving relevant care for addressing alcohol consumption during pregnancy, and (4) being assessed for alcohol consumption and receiving relevant care. Data on resources expended during intervention development and implementation will be collected. The proportion of women who report consuming alcohol since knowing they were pregnant will be measured as a secondary outcome. This will be the first randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness, cost and cost-effectiveness of implementation strategies in improving antenatal care that addresses alcohol consumption by pregnant women. If positive changes in clinical practice are found, this evidence will support health service adoption of implementation strategies to support improved antenatal care for this recognised risk to the health and wellbeing of the mother and child. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, No. ACTRN12617000882325 (date registered: 16/06/2017). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 6 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Ireland | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
| Scientists | 4 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 152 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 9% |
| Researcher | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 15% |
| Unknown | 58 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 17% |
| Psychology | 17 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Unknown | 61 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 22 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,261,848
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#849
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,454
of 334,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#24
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 334,235 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.