↓ Skip to main content

Developing, delivering and evaluating primary mental health care: the co-production of a new complex intervention

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Developing, delivering and evaluating primary mental health care: the co-production of a new complex intervention
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1726-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanne Reeve, Lucy Cooper, Sean Harrington, Peter Rosbottom, Jane Watkins

Abstract

Health services face the challenges created by complex problems, and so need complex intervention solutions. However they also experience ongoing difficulties in translating findings from research in this area in to quality improvement changes on the ground. BounceBack was a service development innovation project which sought to examine this issue through the implementation and evaluation in a primary care setting of a novel complex intervention. The project was a collaboration between a local mental health charity, an academic unit, and GP practices. The aim was to translate the charity's model of care into practice-based evidence describing delivery and impact. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to support the implementation of the new model of primary mental health care into six GP practices. An integrated process evaluation evaluated the process and impact of care. Implementation quickly stalled as we identified problems with the described model of care when applied in a changing and variable primary care context. The team therefore switched to using the NPT framework to support the systematic identification and modification of the components of the complex intervention: including the core components that made it distinct (the consultation approach) and the variable components (organisational issues) that made it work in practice. The extra work significantly reduced the time available for outcome evaluation. However findings demonstrated moderately successful implementation of the model and a suggestion of hypothesised changes in outcomes. The BounceBack project demonstrates the development of a complex intervention from practice. It highlights the use of Normalisation Process Theory to support development, and not just implementation, of a complex intervention; and describes the use of the research process in the generation of practice-based evidence. Implications for future translational complex intervention research supporting practice change through scholarship are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Sierra Leone 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 81 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 18%
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Psychology 18 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 14%
Social Sciences 10 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 17 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 June 2019.
All research outputs
#3,248,298
of 14,027,165 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,391
of 4,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,948
of 264,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,027,165 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,742 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 264,138 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.