↓ Skip to main content

Engaging experts and patients to refine the nutrition literacy assessment instrument

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nutrition, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Engaging experts and patients to refine the nutrition literacy assessment instrument
Published in
BMC Nutrition, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40795-017-0190-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather D. Gibbs, Susan Harvey, Sarah Owens, Diane Boyle, Debra K. Sullivan

Abstract

An objective measure of nutrition literacy is unavailable for use in the primary care population. The Nutrition Literacy Assessment instrument (NLit) is a tool designed to measure nutrition literacy across six domains and has been previously piloted in breast cancer and parent populations. The purpose of this research was to engage nutrition experts and patients to guide revisions of the NLit for use in adult primary care. Experts (n=5) reviewed each item in the NLit using a survey to assign rankings of their agreement according to relevance, clarity, and reading difficulty. Relevance rankings were used to calculate Scale Content Validity Index. After suggested revisions were made, patients (n=12) were recruited from urban primary care clinics of a University Medical Center located in the Midwestern United States and were interviewed by trained researchers using the cognitive interview approach to generate thoughts, feelings, and ideas regarding NLit items. Data analysis involved qualitative and quantitative methods. Content validity from expert review was confirmed with a total Scale Content Validity Index of 0.90. Themes emerging from the cognitive interviews resulted in changes in the NLit to improve instrument clarity. These data suggest the NLit achieves its target constructs, is understood by the target audience, and is ready to undergo validity and reliability testing within the primary care population.

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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 29 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 32 36%
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 12 September 2017.
All research outputs
#12,934,638
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nutrition
#197
of 449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,959
of 317,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nutrition
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 317,366 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.