↓ Skip to main content

Sustaining complex interventions in long-term care: a qualitative study of direct care staff and managers

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Sustaining complex interventions in long-term care: a qualitative study of direct care staff and managers
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0454-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cathleen Colón-Emeric, Mark Toles, Michael P. Cary, Melissa Batchelor-Murphy, Tracey Yap, Yuting Song, Rasheeda Hall, Amber Anderson, Andrew Burd, Ruth A. Anderson

Abstract

Little is known about the sustainability of behavioral change interventions in long-term care (LTC). Following a cluster randomized trial of an intervention to improve staff communication (CONNECT), we conducted focus groups of direct care staff and managers to elicit their perceptions of factors that enhance or reduce sustainability in the LTC setting. The overall aim was to generate hypotheses about how to sustain complex interventions in LTC. In eight facilities, we conducted 15 focus groups with 83 staff who had participated in at least one intervention session. Where possible, separate groups were conducted with direct care staff and managers. An interview guide probed for staff perceptions of intervention salience and sustainability. Framework analysis of coded transcripts was used to distill insights about sustainability related to intervention features, organizational context, and external supports. Staff described important factors for intervention sustainability that are particularly challenging in LTC. Because of the tremendous diversity in staff roles and education level, interventions should balance complexity and simplicity, use a variety of delivery methods and venues (e.g., group and individual sessions, role-play/storytelling), and be inclusive of many work positions. Intervention customizability and flexibility was particularly prized in this unpredictable and resource-strapped environment. Contextual features noted to be important include addressing the frequent lack of trust between direct care staff and managers and ensuring that direct care staff directly observe manager participation and support for the program. External supports suggested to be useful for sustainability include formalization of changes into facility routines, using "train the trainer" approaches and refresher sessions. High staff turnover is common in LTC, and providing materials for new staff orientation was reported to be important for sustainability. When designing or implementing complex behavior change interventions in LTC, consideration of these particularly salient intervention features, contextual factors, and external supports identified by staff may enhance sustainability. ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT00636675.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 110 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 27 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 21%
Social Sciences 15 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 11%
Psychology 6 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 33 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 28 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,042,432
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#192
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,608
of 356,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 356,439 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.