↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of interventions to increase the delivery of preventive care by primary care nurses and allied health clinicians

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2016
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 (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Systematic review of interventions to increase the delivery of preventive care by primary care nurses and allied health clinicians
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0409-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen M. McElwaine, Megan Freund, Elizabeth M. Campbell, Kate M. Bartlem, Paula M. Wye, John H. Wiggers

Abstract

Primary care nurses and allied health clinicians are potential providers of opportunistic preventive care. This systematic review aimed to summarise evidence for the effectiveness of practice change interventions in increasing nurse or allied health professional provision of any of five preventive care elements (ask, assess, advise, assist, and/or arrange) for any of four behavioural risks (smoking, inadequate nutrition, alcohol overconsumption, physical inactivity) within a primary care setting. A search of Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases was undertaken to locate controlled intervention trials published between 1992 and May 2014 that provided practice change interventions to primary care nurses and/or allied health professionals to increase preventive care. The effect of interventions aimed at increasing the provision of any of the five care elements for any of the four behavioural risks was examined. A narrative synthesis was utilised. From 8109 articles, seven trials met the inclusion criteria. All trials bar one, assessed multi-strategic practice change interventions (three to five strategies) focused on care by nurses (six trials) or mixed nursing/allied health clinicians. One trial examined care provision for all four risks, five trials examined care for smoking only, and one trial examined care for alcohol consumption only. For the six trials reporting significance testing (excludes one smoking care trial), significant effects favouring the intervention group were reported in at least one trial for smoking risk assessment (2/4 trials reported an effect for at least one analysis of an assessment outcome), brief advice (2/3), assistance (2/2), and arranging referral (2/3); alcohol risk assessment (1/2) and brief advice (1/2); inadequate nutrition risk assessment (1/1); and physical inactivity risk assessment and brief advice (1/1). When the number of analyses undertaken within trials focusing on smoking care was considered, the results were less promising (e.g. of the 15 analyses conducted on brief advice variables across three trials, four showed a positive effect). Evidence for the effect of practice change interventions on preventive care by primary care nurses or allied health providers is inconclusive given the small number of trials and inconsistency of results between and within trials. None.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 108 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 4 4%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 34 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 20%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Psychology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 33 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,904,224
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#935
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,327
of 302,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#27
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 302,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.