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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Physical activity assessment in practice: a mixed methods study of GPPAQ use in primary care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Primary Care, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2296-15-11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neil Heron, Mark A Tully, Michelle C McKinley, Margaret E Cupples |
| Abstract |
Insufficient physical activity (PA) levels which increase the risk of chronic disease are reported by almost two-thirds of the population. More evidence is needed about how PA promotion can be effectively implemented in general practice (GP), particularly in socio-economically disadvantaged communities. One tool recommended for the assessment of PA in GP and supported by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) is The General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) but details of how it may be used and of its acceptability to practitioners and patients are limited. This study aims to examine aspects of GPPAQ administration in non-urgent patient contacts using different primary care electronic recording systems and to explore the views of health professionals regarding its use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 60% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 92 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 21% |
| Researcher | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 21% |
| Unknown | 15 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 11% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 February 2014.
All research outputs
#6,298,484
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#784
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,235
of 336,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#13
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 336,900 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.