↓ Skip to main content

The NLstart2run study: health effects of a running promotion program in novice runners, design of a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
The NLstart2run study: health effects of a running promotion program in novice runners, design of a prospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-13-685
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bas Kluitenberg, Marienke van Middelkoop, Ron L Diercks, Fred Hartgens, Evert Verhagen, Dirk-Wouter Smits, Ida Buist, Henk van der Worp

Abstract

Running is associated with desirable lifestyle changes. Therefore several initiatives have been undertaken to promote running. Exact data on the health effects as a result of participating in a short-term running promotion program, however, is scarce. One important reason for dropout from a running program is a running-related injury (RRI). The incidence of RRIs is high, especially in novice runners. Several studies examined potential risk factors for RRIs, however, due to the often underpowered studies it is not possible to reveal the complex mechanism leading to an RRI yet.The primary objectives are to determine short- and long-term health effects of a nationwide "Start to Run" program and to identify determinants for RRIs in novice runners. Secondary objectives include examining reasons and determinants for dropout, medical consumption and economical consequences of RRIs as a result of a running promotion program.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 3 3%
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 84 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Researcher 10 11%
Other 6 7%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 29%
Sports and Recreations 21 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 18 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 December 2015.
All research outputs
#3,094,282
of 12,336,133 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,404
of 8,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,385
of 150,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#69
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,336,133 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 150,203 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 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 57% of its contemporaries.