↓ Skip to main content

Physical micro-environment interventions for healthier eating in the workplace: protocol for a stepped wedge randomised controlled pilot trial

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, June 2017
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Physical micro-environment interventions for healthier eating in the workplace: protocol for a stepped wedge randomised controlled pilot trial
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0141-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Milica Vasiljevic, Emma Cartwright, Rachel Pechey, Gareth J. Hollands, Dominique-Laurent Couturier, Susan A. Jebb, Theresa M. Marteau

Abstract

An estimated one third of energy is consumed in the workplace. The workplace is therefore an important context in which to reduce energy consumption to tackle the high rates of overweight and obesity in the general population. Altering environmental cues for food selection and consumption-physical micro-environment or 'choice architecture' interventions-has the potential to reduce energy intake. The first aim of this pilot trial is to estimate the potential impact upon energy purchased of three such environmental cues (size of portions, packages and tableware; availability of healthier vs. less healthy options; and energy labelling) in workplace cafeterias. A second aim of this pilot trial is to examine the feasibility of recruiting eligible worksites, and identify barriers to the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the interventions in preparation for a larger trial. Eighteen worksite cafeterias in England will be assigned to one of three intervention groups to assess the impact on energy purchased of altering (a) portion, package and tableware size (n = 6); (b) availability of healthier options (n = 6); and (c) energy (calorie) labelling (n = 6). Using a stepped wedge design, sites will implement allocated interventions at different time periods, as randomised. This pilot trial will examine the feasibility of recruiting eligible worksites, and the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the interventions in preparation for a larger trial. In addition, a series of linear mixed models will be used to estimate the impact of each intervention on total energy (calories) purchased per time frame of analysis (daily or weekly) controlling for the total sales/transactions adjusted for calendar time and with random effects for worksite. These analyses will allow an estimate of an effect size of each of the three proposed interventions, which will form the basis of the sample size calculations necessary for a larger trial. ISRCTN52923504.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,328,461
of 25,587,485 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#107
of 1,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,025
of 331,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#5
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,587,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 331,916 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.