↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of patient reported factors associated with uptake and completion of cardiovascular lifestyle behaviour change

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A systematic review of patient reported factors associated with uptake and completion of cardiovascular lifestyle behaviour change
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2261-12-120
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenni Murray, Cheryl Leanne Craigs, Kate Mary Hill, Stephanie Honey, Allan House

Abstract

Healthy lifestyles are an important facet of cardiovascular risk management. Unfortunately many individuals fail to engage with lifestyle change programmes. There are many factors that patients report as influencing their decisions about initiating lifestyle change. This is challenging for health care professionals who may lack the skills and time to address a broad range of barriers to lifestyle behaviour. Guidance on which factors to focus on during lifestyle consultations may assist healthcare professionals to hone their skills and knowledge leading to more productive patient interactions with ultimately better uptake of lifestyle behaviour change support. The aim of our study was to clarify which influences reported by patients predict uptake and completion of formal lifestyle change programmes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 21%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 15 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 25%
Psychology 33 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 16%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 24 17%

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 14 December 2012.
All research outputs
#2,670,743
of 5,037,615 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#226
of 465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,434
of 285,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#17
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,037,615 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 465 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 285,008 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.