↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the ‘HEYMAN’ healthy lifestyle program for young men: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
423 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
Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the ‘HEYMAN’ healthy lifestyle program for young men: a pilot randomised controlled trial
Published in
Nutrition Journal, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12937-017-0227-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee M. Ashton, Philip J. Morgan, Melinda J. Hutchesson, Megan E. Rollo, Clare E. Collins

Abstract

In young men, unhealthy lifestyle behaviours can be detrimental to their physical and/or mental health and set them on a negative health trajectory into adulthood. Despite this, there is a lack of evidence to guide development of effective health behaviour change interventions for young men. This study assessed the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the 'HEYMAN' (Harnessing Ehealth to enhance Young men's Mental health, Activity and Nutrition) healthy lifestyle program for young men. A pilot RCT with 50 young men aged 18-25 years randomised to the HEYMAN intervention (n = 26) or waitlist control (n = 24). HEYMAN was a 3-month intervention, targeted for young men to improve eating habits, activity levels and well-being. Intervention development was informed by a participatory research model (PRECEDE-PROCEED). Intervention components included eHealth support (website, wearable device, Facebook support group), face-to-face sessions (group and individual), a personalised food and nutrient report, home-based resistance training equipment and a portion control tool. Outcomes included: feasibility of research procedures (recruitment, randomisation, data collection and retention) and of intervention components. Generalized linear mixed models estimated the treatment effect at 3-months for the primary outcomes: pedometer steps/day, diet quality, well-being and several secondary outcomes. A 7-week recruitment period was required to enrol 50 young men. A retention rate of 94% was achieved at 3-months post-intervention. Retained intervention participants (n = 24) demonstrated reasonable usage levels for most program components and also reported reasonable levels of program component acceptability for attractiveness, comprehension, usability, support, satisfaction and ability to persuade, with scores ranging from 3.0 to 4.6 (maximum 5). No significant intervention effects were observed for the primary outcomes of steps/day (1012.7, 95% CI = -506.2, 2531.6, p = 0.191, d = 0.36), diet quality score (3.6, 95% CI = -0.4, 7.6, p = 0.081, d = 0.48) or total well-being score (0.4, 95% CI = -1.6, 2.5, p = 0.683, d = 0.11). Significant intervention effects were found for daily vegetable servings, energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods, MVPA, weight, BMI, fat mass, waist circumference and cholesterol (all p < 0.05). The HEYMAN program demonstrated feasibility in assisting young men to make some positive lifestyle changes. This provides support for the conduct of a larger, fully-powered RCT, but with minor amendments to research procedures and intervention components required. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000350426 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 423 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 422 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 15%
Student > Bachelor 55 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 35 8%
Researcher 29 7%
Other 53 13%
Unknown 141 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 65 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 55 13%
Psychology 33 8%
Social Sciences 23 5%
Sports and Recreations 22 5%
Other 60 14%
Unknown 165 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#2,042,806
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#490
of 1,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,682
of 421,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 421,590 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 50% of its contemporaries.