↓ Skip to main content

Inequalities in energy-balance related behaviours and family environmental determinants in European children: changes and sustainability within the EPHE evaluation study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, 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 (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Inequalities in energy-balance related behaviours and family environmental determinants in European children: changes and sustainability within the EPHE evaluation study
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0438-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Krystallia Mantziki, Carry M. Renders, Achilleas Vassilopoulos, Gabriella Radulian, Jean-Michel Borys, Hugues du Plessis, Maria João Gregório, Pedro Graça, Stefaan de Henauw, Svetoslav Handjiev, Tommy L. S. Visscher, Jacob C. Seidell

Abstract

Increasing social inequalities in health across Europe are widening the gap between low and high socio-economic groups, notably in the prevalence of obesity. Public health interventions may result in differential effects across population groups. Therefore, the EPHE (EPODE for the Promotion of Health Equity) project analysed the added value of community-based programmes, based on the EPODE (Ensemble Prévenons l'Obésité Des Enfants-Together Let's Prevent Obesity) model, to reduce socio-economic inequalities in energy balance-related behaviours of children and their family-environmental related determinants in seven European communities. This study presents the changes between baseline and follow-up after the one-year interventions and their sustainability one year after. This is a prospective study with a one school-year intervention, followed by one year of follow-up. In all, 1266 children (age 6-8 years) and their families from different socio-economic backgrounds were recruited at baseline. For 1062 children, information was available after one year (T1) and for 921 children after two years (T2). A self-reported questionnaire was completed by the parents to examine the children's energy balance-related behaviours and family- environmental determinants. Socio-economic status was defined by the educational level of the mother. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired data was used to test the differences between baseline and intermediate, and between intermediate and final, measurements for each of the socio-economic status groups. Post-intervention effects in energy-balance related behaviours showed the following improvements among the low socio-economic status groups: increased fruit consumption (Netherlands), decreased fruit juices amount consumed (Romania) and decreased TV time on weekdays (Belgium). Whereas in only the latter case the behavioural change was accompanied with an improvement in a family-environmental determinant (monitoring the time the child watches TV), other improvements in parental rules and practices related to soft drinks/fruit juices and TV exposure were observed. A few of those effects were sustainable, notably in the case of Belgium. Inequalities in obesity-related behaviours could be potentially reduced when implementing community-based interventions, tailored to inequality gaps and using the EPODE methodology. Within-group changes varied widely, whereas monitoring of interventions and process evaluation are crucial to understand the observed results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 17%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 42 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 12%
Social Sciences 14 11%
Psychology 5 4%
Environmental Science 5 4%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 48 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,652,869
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#902
of 1,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,570
of 323,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#19
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 323,983 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.