↓ Skip to main content

Exploring synergistic interactions and catalysts in complex interventions: longitudinal, mixed methods case studies of an optimised multi-level suicide prevention intervention in four european…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Exploring synergistic interactions and catalysts in complex interventions: longitudinal, mixed methods case studies of an optimised multi-level suicide prevention intervention in four european countries (Ospi-Europe)
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2942-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona M. Harris, Margaret Maxwell, Rory O’Connor, James C. Coyne, Ella Arensman, Claire Coffey, Nicole Koburger, Ricardo Gusmão, Susana Costa, András Székely, Zoltan Cserhati, David McDaid, Chantal van Audenhove, Ulrich Hegerl

Abstract

The Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for complex interventions highlights the need to explore interactions between components of complex interventions, but this has not yet been fully explored within complex, non-pharmacological interventions. This paper draws on the process evaluation data of a suicide prevention programme implemented in four European countries to illustrate the synergistic interactions between intervention levels in a complex programme, and to present our method for exploring these. A realist evaluation approach informed the process evaluation, which drew on mixed methods, longitudinal case studies. Data collection consisted of 47 semi-structured interviews, 12 focus groups, one workshop, fieldnoted observations of six programme meetings and 20 questionnaires (delivered at six month intervals to each of the four intervention sites). Analysis drew on the framework approach, facilitated by the use of QSR NVivo (v10). Our qualitative approach to exploring synergistic interactions (QuaSIC) also developed a matrix of hypothesised synergies that were explored within one workshop and two waves of data collection. All four implementation countries provided examples of synergistic interactions that added value beyond the sum of individual intervention levels or components in isolation. For instance, the launch ceremony of the public health campaign (a level 3 intervention) in Ireland had an impact on the community-based professional training, increasing uptake and visibility of training for journalists in particular. In turn, this led to increased media reporting of OSPI activities (monitored as part of the public health campaign) and also led to wider dissemination of editorial guidelines for responsible reporting of suicidal acts. Analysis of the total process evaluation dataset also revealed the new phenomenon of the OSPI programme acting as a catalyst for externally generated (and funded) activity that shared the goals of suicide prevention. The QuaSIC approach enabled us to develop and refine our definition of synergistic interactions and add the innovative concept of catalytic effects. This represents a novel approach to the evaluation of complex interventions. By exploring synergies and catalytic interactions related to a complex intervention or programme, we reveal the added value to planned activities and how they might be maximised.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 93 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 21 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Social Sciences 13 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 27 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 10 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,310,932
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,412
of 15,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,090
of 301,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#27
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 15,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 301,169 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.