↓ Skip to main content

A retrospective analysis of real-world use of the eaTracker® My Goals website by adults from Ontario and Alberta, Canada

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

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
A retrospective analysis of real-world use of the eaTracker® My Goals website by adults from Ontario and Alberta, Canada
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3640-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica R. L. Lieffers, Helen Haresign, Christine Mehling, Rhona M. Hanning

Abstract

Little is known about use of goal setting and tracking tools within online programs to support nutrition and physical activity behaviour change. In 2011, Dietitians of Canada added "My Goals," a nutrition and physical activity behaviour goal setting and tracking tool to their free publicly available self-monitoring website (eaTracker® ( http://www.eaTracker.ca/ )). My Goals allows users to: a) set "ready-made" SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time-related) goals (choice of n = 87 goals from n = 13 categories) or "write your own" goals, and b) track progress using the "My Goals Tracker." The purpose of this study was to characterize: a) My Goals user demographics, b) types of goals set, and c) My Goals Tracker use. Anonymous data on all goals set using the My Goals feature from December 6/2012-April 28/2014 by users ≥19y from Ontario and Alberta, Canada were obtained. This dataset contained: anonymous self-reported user demographic data, user set goals, and My Goals Tracker use data. Write your own goals were categorized by topic and specificity. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Multivariate binary logistic regression was used to determine associations between user demographics and a) goal topic areas and b) My Goals Tracker use. Overall, n = 16,511 goal statements (75.4 % ready-made; 24.6 % write your own) set by n = 8,067 adult users 19-85y (83.3 % female; mean age 41.1 ± 15.0y, mean BMI 28.8 ± 7.6kg/m(2)) were included for analysis. Overall, 33.1 % of ready-made goals were from the "Managing your Weight" category. Of write your own goal entries, 42.3 % were solely distal goals (most related to weight management); 38.6 % addressed nutrition behaviour change (16.6 % had unspecific general eating goals); 18.1 % addressed physical activity behaviour change (47.3 % had goals without information on exercise amount and type). Many write your own goals were poor quality (e.g., non-specific (e.g., missing amounts)), and possibly unrealistic (e.g., no sugar). Few goals were tracked (<10 %). Demographic variables had statistically significant relations with goal topic areas and My Goals Tracker use. eaTracker® users had high interest in goal setting and the My Goals feature, however, self-written goals were often poor quality and goal tracking was rare. Further research is needed to better support users.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 16%
Student > Master 15 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 4%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 37 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 16%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Sports and Recreations 6 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 34 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,472,072
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,906
of 14,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,646
of 321,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#296
of 336 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 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 14,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. 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 321,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 336 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.