↓ Skip to main content

Cluster randomized trial of a multilevel evidence-based quality improvement approach to tailoring VA Patient Aligned Care Teams to the needs of women Veterans

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
Cluster randomized trial of a multilevel evidence-based quality improvement approach to tailoring VA Patient Aligned Care Teams to the needs of women Veterans
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0461-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth M. Yano, Jill E. Darling, Alison B. Hamilton, Ismelda Canelo, Emmeline Chuang, Lisa S. Meredith, Lisa V. Rubenstein

Abstract

The Veterans Health Administration (VA) has undertaken a major initiative to transform care through implementation of Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs). Based on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) concept, PACT aims to improve access, continuity, coordination, and comprehensiveness using team-based care that is patient-driven and patient-centered. However, how VA should adapt PACT to meet the needs of special populations, such as women Veterans (WVs), was not considered in initial implementation guidance. WVs' numerical minority in VA healthcare settings (approximately 7-8 % of users) creates logistical challenges to delivering gender-sensitive comprehensive care. The main goal of this study is to test an evidence-based quality improvement approach (EBQI) to tailoring PACT to meet the needs of WVs, incorporating comprehensive primary care services and gender-specific care in gender-sensitive environments, thereby accelerating achievement of PACT tenets for women (Women's Health (WH)-PACT). EBQI is a systematic approach to developing a multilevel research-clinical partnership that engages senior organizational leaders and local quality improvement (QI) teams in adapting and implementing new care models in the context of prior evidence and local practice conditions, with researchers providing technical support, formative feedback, and practice facilitation. In a 12-site cluster randomized trial, we will evaluate WH-PACT model achievement using patient, provider, staff, and practice surveys, in addition to analyses of secondary administrative and chart-based data. We will explore impacts of receipt of WH-PACT care on quality of chronic disease care and prevention, health status, patient satisfaction and experience of care, provider experience, utilization, and costs. Using mixed methods, we will assess pre-post practice contexts; document EBQI activities undertaken in participating facilities and their relationship to provider/staff and team actions/attitudes; document WH-PACT implementation; and examine barriers/facilitators to EBQI-supported WH-PACT implementation through a combination of semi-structured interviews and monthly formative progress narratives and administrative data. Lack of gender-sensitive comprehensive care has demonstrated consequences for the technical quality and ratings of care among WVs and may contribute to decisions to continue use or seek care elsewhere under the US Affordable Care Act. We hypothesize that tailoring PACT implementation through EBQI may improve the experience and quality of care at many levels. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02039856.

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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 33 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 14%
Psychology 15 13%
Social Sciences 15 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 37 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,764,327
of 23,339,727 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,418
of 1,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,429
of 364,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#26
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,339,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,729 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 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 364,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.