↓ Skip to main content

A protocol paper: community engagement interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention in socially disadvantaged populations in the UK: an implementation research study

Overview of attention for article published in Global Health Research and Policy, March 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
A protocol paper: community engagement interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention in socially disadvantaged populations in the UK: an implementation research study
Published in
Global Health Research and Policy, March 2020
DOI 10.1186/s41256-020-0131-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Papreen Nahar, Harm van Marwijk, Linda Gibson, Geofrey Musinguzi, Sibyl Anthierens, Elizabeth Ford, Stephen A. Bremner, Mark Bowyer, Jean Yves Le Reste, Tholene Sodi, Hilde Bastiaens

Abstract

Cardiovascular disorders (CVD) are the single greatest cause of mortality worldwide. In the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) has launched an initiative of health checks over and above current care to tackle CVD. However, the uptake of Health Checks is poor in disadvantaged communities. This protocol paper sets out a UK-based study (Sussex and Nottingham) aiming to co-produce a community delivered CVD risk assessment and coaching intervention to support community members to reduce their risk of CVD.The overall aim of the project is to implement a tailored-to-context community engagement (CE) intervention on awareness of CVD risks in vulnerable populations in high, middle and low-income countries. The specific objectives of the study are to enhance stakeholder' engagement; to implement lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular primary prevention, in disadvantaged populations and motivate uptake of NHS health checks. This study uses both qualitative and quantitative methods in three phases of evaluation, including pre-, per- and post-implementation. To ensure contextual appropriateness the 'Scaling-up Packages of Interventions for Cardiovascular disease prevention in selected sites in Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa: An implementation research' (SPICES) project will organize a multi-component community-engagement intervention. For the qualitative component, the pre-implementation phase will involve a contextual assessment and stakeholder mapping, exploring potentials for CVD risk profiling strategies and led by trained Community Health Volunteers (CHV) to identify accessibility and acceptability. The per-implementation phase will involve healthy lifestyle counselling provided by CHVs and evaluation of the outcome to identify fidelity and scalability. The post-implementation phase will involve developing sustainable community-based strategies for CVD risk reduction. All three components will include a process evaluation. A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial of the roll out will focus on implementation outcomes including uptake and engagement and changes in risk profiles. The quantitative component includes pre and post-intervention surveys. The theory of the socio-ecological framework will be applied to analyse the community engagement approach. Based on the results ultimately a sustainable community engagement-based strategy for the primary prevention of CVD risk will be developed to enhance the performance of NHS health care in the UK. The Trial Registration number is ISRCTN68334579.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 21%
Other 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 30 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Psychology 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 30 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 May 2020.
All research outputs
#13,035,341
of 23,198,445 outputs
Outputs from Global Health Research and Policy
#132
of 200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,356
of 364,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Health Research and Policy
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,198,445 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 364,340 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.