↓ Skip to main content

Intervention Component Analysis (ICA): a pragmatic approach for identifying the critical features of complex interventions

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
47 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 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
Intervention Component Analysis (ICA): a pragmatic approach for identifying the critical features of complex interventions
Published in
Systematic Reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0126-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katy Sutcliffe, James Thomas, Gillian Stokes, Kate Hinds, Mukdarut Bangpan

Abstract

In order to enable replication of effective complex interventions, systematic reviews need to provide evidence about their critical features and clear procedural details for their implementation. Currently, few systematic reviews provide sufficient guidance of this sort. Through a worked example, this paper reports on a methodological approach, Intervention Component Analysis (ICA), specifically developed to bridge the gap between evidence of effectiveness and practical implementation of interventions. By (a) using an inductive approach to explore the nature of intervention features and (b) making use of trialists' informally reported experience-based evidence, the approach is designed to overcome the deficiencies of poor reporting which often hinders knowledge translation work whilst also avoiding the need to invest significant amounts of time and resources in following up details with authors. A key strength of the approach is its ability to reveal hidden or overlooked intervention features and barriers and facilitators only identified in practical application of interventions. It is thus especially useful where hypothesised mechanisms in an existing programme theory have failed. A further benefit of the approach is its ability to identify potentially new configurations of components that have not yet been evaluated. ICA is a formal and rigorous yet relatively streamlined approach to identify key intervention content and implementation processes. ICA addresses a critical need for knowledge translation around complex interventions to support policy decisions and evidence implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 142 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 16%
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 9 6%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 26 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 19%
Social Sciences 26 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Psychology 11 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 38 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 16 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,338,238
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#195
of 2,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,747
of 291,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 291,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.