↓ Skip to main content

Elaborating on theory with middle managers’ experience implementing healthcare innovations in practice

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Elaborating on theory with middle managers’ experience implementing healthcare innovations in practice
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0362-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah A. Birken, Lisa D. DiMartino, Meredith A. Kirk, Shoou-Yih D. Lee, Mark McClelland, Nancy M. Albert

Abstract

The theory of middle managers' role in implementing healthcare innovations hypothesized that middle managers influence implementation effectiveness by fulfilling the following four roles: diffusing information, synthesizing information, mediating between strategy and day-to-day activities, and selling innovation implementation. The theory also suggested several activities in which middle managers might engage to fulfill the four roles. The extent to which the theory aligns with middle managers' experience in practice is unclear. We surveyed middle managers (n = 63) who attended a nursing innovation summit to (1) assess alignment between the theory and middle managers' experience in practice and (2) elaborate on the theory with examples from middle managers' experience overseeing innovation implementation in practice. Middle managers rated all of the theory's hypothesized four roles as "extremely important" but ranked diffusing and synthesizing information as the most important and selling innovation implementation as the least important. They reported engaging in several activities that were consistent with the theory's hypothesized roles and activities such as diffusing information via meetings and training. They also reported engaging in activities not described in the theory such as appraising employee performance. Middle managers' experience aligned well with the theory and expanded definitions of the roles and activities that it hypothesized. Future studies should assess the relationship between hypothesized roles and the effectiveness with which innovations are implemented in practice. If evidence supports the theory, the theory should be leveraged to promote the fulfillment of hypothesized roles among middle managers, doing so may promote innovation implementation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 98 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 16%
Student > Master 15 15%
Other 8 8%
Researcher 8 8%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 18 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Social Sciences 13 13%
Psychology 10 10%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 15 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,845,982
of 18,672,358 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#496
of 1,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,160
of 383,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#89
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,672,358 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 383,488 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 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 67% of its contemporaries.