↓ Skip to main content

Time to ‘re-think’ physical activity promotion for young people? Results from a repeated cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Time to ‘re-think’ physical activity promotion for young people? Results from a repeated cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4136-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Best, Mark A. Tully, Rekesh Corepal, Frank Kee, Ruth F. Hunter

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between knowledge of the current UK physical activity (PA) guidelines and amount of daily PA using a sample population of 11-16 year olds in Northern Ireland. Cross-sectional survey data from the 2010 and 2013 Young Persons' Behaviour and Attitudes Survey of 10,790 young people provided information on PA, knowledge of guidelines and socio-demographic characteristics. Multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate the associations between knowledge and amount of daily PA. Results from 2013 showed 67.0% of respondents were aware of PA guidelines with 15.4% reporting meeting them. Males were more likely to meet PA guidelines than females (OR 3.36, 95% CI 2.47, 4.59). Males who were active for 60 min or more, 7 days per week were less likely to be aware of guidelines (OR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.02, 2.24). For females, knowledge of PA guidelines had no significant association with amount of daily PA (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 0.99, 3.07). Those who did not enjoy being active were less likely to meet the guidelines (OR = 0.05, 95% CI 0.02, 0.12). Knowledge did not appear to be an important predictor of PA in young people. Consequently, threshold based messaging containing recommended minimum PA guideline information may not be appropriate for this age group. Re-branding PA promotion to include the use of humour may offer a new direction for public health messaging based around fun and enjoyment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 20%
Sports and Recreations 8 14%
Psychology 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,240,625
of 25,840,929 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,686
of 17,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,110
of 323,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#42
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,840,929 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 17,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 323,419 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.