↓ Skip to main content

Measurement resources for dissemination and implementation research in health

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 X users

Readers on

mendeley
180 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
Measurement resources for dissemination and implementation research in health
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0401-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Borsika A. Rabin, Cara C. Lewis, Wynne E. Norton, Gila Neta, David Chambers, Jonathan N. Tobin, Ross C. Brownson, Russell E. Glasgow

Abstract

A 2-day consensus working meeting, hosted by the United States National Institutes of Health and the Veterans Administration, focused on issues related to dissemination and implementation (D&I) research in measurement and reporting. Meeting participants included 23 researchers, practitioners, and decision makers from the USA and Canada who concluded that the field would greatly benefit from measurement resources to enhance the ease, harmonization, and rigor of D&I evaluation efforts. This paper describes the findings from an environmental scan and literature review of resources for D&I measures. We identified a total of 17 resources, including four web-based repositories and 12 static reviews or tools that attempted to synthesize and evaluate existing measures for D&I research. Thirteen resources came from the health discipline, and 11 were populated from database reviews. Ten focused on quantitative measures, and all were generated as a resource for researchers. Fourteen were organized according to an established D&I theory or framework, with the number of constructs and measures ranging from 1 to more than 450. Measure metadata was quite variable with only six providing information on the psychometric properties of measures. Additional guidance on the development and use of measures are needed. A number of approaches, resources, and critical areas for future work are discussed. Researchers and stakeholders are encouraged to take advantage of a number of funding mechanisms supporting this type of work.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 175 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 9%
Student > Master 16 9%
Other 15 8%
Other 40 22%
Unknown 31 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 21%
Social Sciences 28 16%
Psychology 19 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 51 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 17 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,691,257
of 25,656,290 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#304
of 1,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,576
of 315,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#9
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,656,290 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,817 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 83% 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 315,035 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.