↓ 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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 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 11 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 232 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 228 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 17%
Researcher 30 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 16 7%
Other 33 14%
Unknown 46 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 14%
Social Sciences 25 11%
Psychology 20 9%
Sports and Recreations 14 6%
Other 37 16%
Unknown 56 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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
#4,086,340
of 21,357,544 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,524
of 13,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,639
of 267,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#328
of 1,080 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,357,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 267,476 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,080 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 69% of its contemporaries.