↓ Skip to main content

Is preference for mHealth intervention delivery platform associated with delivery platform familiarity?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Is preference for mHealth intervention delivery platform associated with delivery platform familiarity?
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3316-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Granger, Corneel Vandelanotte, Mitch J. Duncan, Stephanie Alley, Stephanie Schoeppe, Camille Short, Amanda Rebar

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to ascertain whether greater familiarity with a smartphone or tablet was associated with participants' preferred mobile delivery modality for eHealth interventions. Data from 1865 people who participated in the Australian Health and Social Science panel study were included into two multinomial logistic regression analyses in which preference for smartphone and tablet delivery for general or personalised eHealth interventions were regressed onto device familiarity and the covariates of sex, age and education. People were more likely to prefer both general and personalised eHealth interventions presented on tablets if they reported high or moderate tablet familiarity (compared to low familiarity) and people were more likely to prefer both general and personalised eHealth interventions presented on smartphones if they reported high or moderate smartphone familiarity, were younger, and had university education (compared to completing high school or less). People prefer receiving eHealth interventions on the mobile devices they are most familiar with. These findings have important implications that should be considered when developing eHealth interventions, and demonstrates that eHealth interventions should be delivered using multiple platforms simultaneously to optimally cater for as many people as possible.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 12%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Computer Science 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 26 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 July 2016.
All research outputs
#9,087,319
of 11,351,468 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,656
of 7,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,487
of 265,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#305
of 347 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,351,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 265,508 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 347 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.