↓ Skip to main content

Increasing physical activity among young children from disadvantaged communities: study protocol of a group randomised controlled effectiveness trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 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 (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
454 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
Increasing physical activity among young children from disadvantaged communities: study protocol of a group randomised controlled effectiveness trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3743-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca M. Stanley, Rachel A. Jones, Dylan P. Cliff, Stewart G. Trost, Donna Berthelsen, Jo Salmon, Marijka Batterham, Simon Eckermann, John J. Reilly, Ngiare Brown, Karen J. Mickle, Steven J. Howard, Trina Hinkley, Xanne Janssen, Paul Chandler, Penny Cross, Fay Gowers, Anthony D. Okely

Abstract

Participation in regular physical activity (PA) during the early years helps children achieve healthy body weight and can substantially improve motor development, bone health, psychosocial health and cognitive development. Despite common assumptions that young children are naturally active, evidence shows that they are insufficiently active for health and developmental benefits. Exploring strategies to increase physical activity in young children is a public health and research priority. Jump Start is a multi-component, multi-setting PA and gross motor skill intervention for young children aged 3-5 years in disadvantaged areas of New South Wales, Australia. The intervention will be evaluated using a two-arm, parallel group, randomised cluster trial. The Jump Start protocol was based on Social Cognitive Theory and includes five components: a structured gross motor skill lesson (Jump In); unstructured outdoor PA and gross motor skill time (Jump Out); energy breaks (Jump Up); activities connecting movement to learning experiences (Jump Through); and a home-based family component to promote PA and gross motor skill (Jump Home). Early childhood education and care centres will be demographically matched and randomised to Jump Start (intervention) or usual practice (comparison) group. The intervention group receive Jump Start professional development, program resources, monthly newsletters and ongoing intervention support. Outcomes include change in total PA (accelerometers) within centre hours, gross motor skill development (Test of Gross Motor Development-2), weight status (body mass index), bone strength (Sunlight MiniOmni Ultrasound Bone Sonometer), self-regulation (Heads-Toes-Knees-Shoulders, executive function tasks, and proxy-report Temperament and Approaches to learning scales), and educator and parent self-efficacy. Extensive quantitative and qualitative process evaluation and a cost-effectiveness evaluation will be conducted. The Jump Start intervention is a unique program to address low levels of PA and gross motor skill proficiency, and support healthy lifestyle behaviours among young children in disadvantaged communities. If shown to be efficacious, the Jump Start approach can be expected to have implications for early childhood education and care policies and practices, and ultimately a positive effect on the health and development across the life course. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry No: ACTRN12614000597695 , first received: June 5, 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 454 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 454 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 74 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 11%
Researcher 47 10%
Student > Bachelor 46 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 6%
Other 60 13%
Unknown 149 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 53 12%
Sports and Recreations 52 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 10%
Social Sciences 44 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 8%
Other 54 12%
Unknown 166 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 19 November 2016.
All research outputs
#4,277,796
of 23,298,349 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,802
of 15,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,667
of 317,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#72
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,298,349 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 317,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.