↓ Skip to main content

Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, March 2017
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
499 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
287 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
436 Mendeley
Title
Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement
Published in
British Medical Journal, March 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmj.i6795
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilary Pinnock, Melanie Barwick, Christopher R Carpenter, Sandra Eldridge, Gonzalo Grandes, Chris J Griffiths, Jo Rycroft-Malone, Paul Meissner, Elizabeth Murray, Anita Patel, Aziz Sheikh, Stephanie J C Taylor

Abstract

Implementation studies are often poorly reported and indexed, reducing their potential to inform initiatives to improve healthcare services. The Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) initiative aimed to develop guidelines for transparent and accurate reporting of implementation studies. Informed by the findings of a systematic review and a consensus-building e-Delphi exercise, an international working group of implementation science experts discussed and agreed the StaRI Checklist comprising 27 items. It prompts researchers to describe both the implementation strategy (techniques used to promote implementation of an underused evidence-based intervention) and the effectiveness of the intervention that was being implemented. An accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document (published in BMJ Open, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013318) details each of the items, explains the rationale, and provides examples of good reporting practice. Adoption of StaRI will improve the reporting of implementation studies, potentially facilitating translation of research into practice and improving the health of individuals and populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 499 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 436 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 433 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 88 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 16%
Student > Master 52 12%
Other 41 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 6%
Other 96 22%
Unknown 67 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 161 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 11%
Psychology 41 9%
Social Sciences 35 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 1%
Other 43 10%
Unknown 100 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 309. 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 18 February 2021.
All research outputs
#63,189
of 18,428,504 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#1,260
of 53,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,156
of 269,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#28
of 842 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,428,504 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 53,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 269,418 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 842 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 96% of its contemporaries.