↓ Skip to main content

Implementing a complex rehabilitation intervention in a stroke trial: a qualitative process evaluation of AVERT

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 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
Implementing a complex rehabilitation intervention in a stroke trial: a qualitative process evaluation of AVERT
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0156-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie A Luker, Louise E Craig, Leanne Bennett, Fiona Ellery, Peter Langhorne, Olivia Wu, Julie Bernhardt

Abstract

The implementation of multidisciplinary stroke rehabilitation interventions is challenging, even when the intervention is evidence-based. Very little is known about the implementation of complex interventions in rehabilitation clinical trials. The aim of study was to better understand how the implementation of a rehabilitation intervention in a clinical trial within acute stroke units is experienced by the staff involved. This qualitative process evaluation was part of a large Phase III stroke rehabilitation trial (AVERT). A descriptive qualitative approach was used. We purposively sampled 53 allied health and nursing staff from 19 acute stroke units in Australia, New Zealand and Scotland. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by phone, voice-internet, or face to face. Digitally recorded interviews were transcribed and analysed by two researchers using rigorous thematic analysis. Our analysis uncovered ten important themes that provide insight into the challenges of implementing complex new rehabilitation practices within complex care settings, plus factors and strategies that assisted implementation. Themes were grouped into three main categories: staff experience of implementing the trial intervention, barriers to implementation, and overcoming the barriers. Participation in the trial was challenging but had personal rewards and improved teamwork at some sites. Over the years that the trial ran some staff perceived a change in usual care. Barriers to trial implementation at some sites included poor teamwork, inadequate staffing, various organisational barriers, staff attitudes and beliefs, and patient-related barriers. Participants described successful implementation strategies that were built on interdisciplinary teamwork, education and strong leadership to 'get staff on board', and developing different ways of working. The AVERT stroke rehabilitation trial required commitment to deliver an intervention that needed strong collaboration between nurses and physiotherapists and was different to current care models. This qualitative process evaluation contributes unique insights into factors that may be critical to successful trials teams, and as AVERT was a pragmatic trial, success factors to delivering complex intervention in clinical practice. AVERT registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12606000185561 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 143 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 15%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 38 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 13%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 10 7%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 45 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 11 July 2016.
All research outputs
#2,155,070
of 24,616,908 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#300
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,380
of 310,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#4
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,616,908 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 310,547 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 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.