↓ Skip to main content

Examining Adaptations of Evidence-Based Programs in Natural Contexts

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Primary Prevention, April 2013
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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Examining Adaptations of Evidence-Based Programs in Natural Contexts
Published in
Journal of Primary Prevention, April 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia E. Moore, Brian K. Bumbarger, Brittany Rhoades Cooper

Abstract

When evidence-based programs (EBPs) are scaled up in natural, or non-research, settings, adaptations are commonly made. Given the fidelity-versus-adaptation debate, theoretical rationales have been provided for the pros and cons of adaptations. Yet the basis of this debate is theoretical; thus, empirical evidence is needed to understand the types of adaptations made in natural settings. In the present study, we introduce a taxonomy for understanding adaptations. This taxonomy addresses several aspects of adaptations made to programs including the fit (philosophical or logistical), timing (proactive or reactive), and valence, or the degree to which the adaptations align with the program's goals and theory, (positive, negative, or neutral). Self-reported qualitative data from communities delivering one of ten state-funded EBPs were coded based on the taxonomy constructs; additionally, quantitative data were used to examine the types and reasons for making adaptations under natural conditions. Forty-four percent of respondents reported making adaptations. Adaptations to the procedures, dosage, and content were cited most often. Lack of time, limited resources, and difficulty retaining participants were listed as the most common reasons for making adaptations. Most adaptations were made reactively, as a result of issues of logistical fit, and were not aligned with, or deviated from, the program's goals and theory.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 13%
Student > Master 10 13%
Professor 5 6%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 25 32%
Psychology 24 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 10 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 29 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,494,345
of 13,941,062 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Primary Prevention
#79
of 344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,544
of 150,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Primary Prevention
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,941,062 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 150,559 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.