↓ Skip to main content

Correlates of meeting the combined and independent aerobic and strength exercise guidelines in hematologic cancer survivors

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 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
Correlates of meeting the combined and independent aerobic and strength exercise guidelines in hematologic cancer survivors
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12966-017-0498-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

James R. Vallerand, Ryan E. Rhodes, Gordon J. Walker, Kerry S. Courneya

Abstract

Most previous research on the correlates of physical activity has examined the aerobic or strength exercise guidelines separately. Such an approach does not allow an examination of the correlates of meeting the combined guidelines versus a single guideline, or one guideline versus the other. Here, we report the prevalence and correlates of meeting the combined and independent exercise guidelines in hematologic cancer survivors (HCS). In a population-based, cross-sectional survey of 606 HCS from Alberta, Canada using a mailed questionnaire, we obtained separate assessments of aerobic and strength exercise behaviors, as well as separate assessments for motivations, regulations, and reflective processes using the multi-process action control framework (M-PAC). Overall, 22% of HCS met the combined exercise guideline, 22% met aerobic-only, 10% met strength-only, and 46% met neither exercise guideline. HCS were more likely to meet the combined guideline over the aerobic-only guideline if they had no children living at home, and over both the aerobic and strength-only guidelines if they had completed university. As hypothesized, those meeting the combined guideline also had a more favorable strength-specific M-PAC profile (i.e., motivations, regulations, and reflective processes) than those meeting the aerobic-only guideline, and a more favorable aerobic-specific M-PAC profile than those meeting the strength-only guideline. Interestingly and unexpectedly, HCS meeting the combined guidelines also reported significantly greater aerobic-specific perceived control, planning, and obligation/regret than those meeting the aerobic-only guideline, and greater strength-specific perceived control, planning, and obligation/regret than those meeting the strength-only guideline. Few HCS are meeting the combined exercise guidelines. M-PAC based variables are strong correlates of meeting the combined guidelines compared to aerobic or strength only guidelines. Strategies to help HCS meet the combined guidelines may need to promote more favorable behavioral regulations and reflective processes for both types of exercise rather than just the type of exercise in which HCS are deficient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 158 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Researcher 6 4%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 69 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 13%
Sports and Recreations 20 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 11%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 75 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 October 2018.
All research outputs
#13,032,628
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,650
of 1,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,248
of 308,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#45
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,937 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.7. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 308,511 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.