↓ Skip to main content

Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

Overview of attention for article published in Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 440)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
33 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1013 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1579 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda
Published in
Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, October 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Enola Proctor, Hiie Silmere, Ramesh Raghavan, Peter Hovmand, Greg Aarons, Alicia Bunger, Richard Griffey, Melissa Hensley

Abstract

An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of "implementation outcomes" distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working "taxonomy" of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes-acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability-along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 1,579 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 22 1%
United Kingdom 9 <1%
Australia 4 <1%
India 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 8 <1%
Unknown 1527 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 320 20%
Researcher 311 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 287 18%
Unspecified 165 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 128 8%
Other 368 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 399 25%
Unspecified 269 17%
Psychology 266 17%
Social Sciences 258 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 200 13%
Other 187 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 17 October 2019.
All research outputs
#398,843
of 13,755,459 outputs
Outputs from Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research
#6
of 440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,524
of 189,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,755,459 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 189,516 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.