↓ Skip to main content

Value-based healthcare translated: a complementary view of implementation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
Value-based healthcare translated: a complementary view of implementation
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3488-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Colldén, Andreas Hellström

Abstract

Interest in the implementation of various innovations (e.g. medical interventions and organizational approaches) has increased rapidly, and management innovations (MIs) are considered particularly complex to implement. In contrast to a traditional view that innovations are implemented, some scholars have promoted the view that innovations are translated into contexts, a view referred to as translation theory. The aim of this paper is to investigate how a translation theory perspective can inform the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR) to increase understanding of the complex process of putting MIs into practice. The empirical base is a two-year implementation of the MI Value-Based Health Care (VBHC) to a psychiatric department in a large Swedish hospital. In this longitudinal case study, a qualitative approach was applied using an insider researcher with unique access to data, who followed the implementation starting in 2015. Data sources includes field notes, documents, and audio recordings of meetings and group reflections which were abridged into an event data file structured by CFIR domains. In a joint analysis, an outsider researcher was added to strengthen the analysis and mitigate potential bias. Two themes were identified, for which CFIR did not satisfactorily explain the findings. First, the intervention characteristics (i.e. the content of the MI) were modified along the process and, second, the process did not follow predefined plans. However, the project was still perceived to be successful by internal and external stakeholders. The paper proposes three ways in which translation theory can inform CFIR when applied to MIs: 1) strength of evidence is not as important for MIs as for medical and technical innovations; 2) adaptability of the MI can be emphasized more strongly, and 3) it can be more fruitful to view implementation as a dynamic process rather than seeing it as a matter of planning and execution. For managers, this implies encouragement to seize the opportunity to translate MIs to fit their organization, rather than to aim to be true to an original concept.

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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 175 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 14%
Other 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 55 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 23 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 11%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Engineering 9 5%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 63 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,048,906
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,843
of 7,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,112
of 335,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#63
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 335,675 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 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 61% of its contemporaries.