↓ Skip to main content

Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, November 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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
49 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
265 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
614 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria
Published in
Implementation Science, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0342-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cara C. Lewis, Sarah Fischer, Bryan J. Weiner, Cameo Stanick, Mimi Kim, Ruben G. Martinez

Abstract

High-quality measurement is critical to advancing knowledge in any field. New fields, such as implementation science, are often beset with measurement gaps and poor quality instruments, a weakness that can be more easily addressed in light of systematic review findings. Although several reviews of quantitative instruments used in implementation science have been published, no studies have focused on instruments that measure implementation outcomes. Proctor and colleagues established a core set of implementation outcomes including: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, sustainability (Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 36:24-34, 2009). The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) Instrument Review Project employed an enhanced systematic review methodology (Implement Sci 2: 2015) to identify quantitative instruments of implementation outcomes relevant to mental or behavioral health settings. Full details of the enhanced systematic review methodology are available (Implement Sci 2: 2015). To increase the feasibility of the review, and consistent with the scope of SIRC, only instruments that were applicable to mental or behavioral health were included. The review, synthesis, and evaluation included the following: (1) a search protocol for the literature review of constructs; (2) the literature review of instruments using Web of Science and PsycINFO; and (3) data extraction and instrument quality ratings to inform knowledge synthesis. Our evidence-based assessment rating criteria quantified fundamental psychometric properties as well as a crude measure of usability. Two independent raters applied the evidence-based assessment rating criteria to each instrument to generate a quality profile. We identified 104 instruments across eight constructs, with nearly half (n = 50) assessing acceptability and 19 identified for adoption, with all other implementation outcomes revealing fewer than 10 instruments. Only one instrument demonstrated at least minimal evidence for psychometric strength on all six of the evidence-based assessment criteria. The majority of instruments had no information regarding responsiveness or predictive validity. Implementation outcomes instrumentation is underdeveloped with respect to both the sheer number of available instruments and the psychometric quality of existing instruments. Until psychometric strength is established, the field will struggle to identify which implementation strategies work best, for which organizations, and under what conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 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 614 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Unknown 604 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 127 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 107 17%
Student > Master 71 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 45 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 37 6%
Other 113 18%
Unknown 114 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 111 18%
Psychology 102 17%
Social Sciences 85 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 2%
Other 82 13%
Unknown 162 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 11 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,283,298
of 25,504,429 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#220
of 1,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,101
of 297,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#8
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,504,429 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 1,815 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 297,110 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 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.