↓ Skip to main content

What is actually measured in process evaluations for worksite health promotion programs: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2013
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
What is actually measured in process evaluations for worksite health promotion programs: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1190
Pubmed ID
Authors

Debbie Wierenga, Luuk H Engbers, Pepijn Van Empelen, Saskia Duijts, Vincent H Hildebrandt, Willem Van Mechelen

Abstract

Numerous worksite health promotion program (WHPPs) have been implemented the past years to improve employees' health and lifestyle (i.e., physical activity, nutrition, smoking, alcohol use and relaxation). Research primarily focused on the effectiveness of these WHPPs. Whereas process evaluations provide essential information necessary to improve large scale implementation across other settings. Therefore, this review aims to: (1) further our understanding of the quality of process evaluations alongside effect evaluations for WHPPs, (2) identify barriers/facilitators affecting implementation, and (3) explore the relationship between effectiveness and the implementation process.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 209 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 19%
Researcher 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Student > Postgraduate 15 7%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 33 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 15%
Social Sciences 25 12%
Psychology 20 9%
Sports and Recreations 13 6%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 42 20%

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 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#3,300,819
of 18,787,703 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,758
of 12,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,580
of 247,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#312
of 1,087 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,787,703 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 247,983 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,087 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 71% of its contemporaries.