↓ Skip to main content

Using mobile technology to support lower-salt food choices for people with cardiovascular disease: protocol for the SaltSwitch randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2014
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)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
247 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
Using mobile technology to support lower-salt food choices for people with cardiovascular disease: protocol for the SaltSwitch randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-950
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Eyles, Rebecca McLean, Bruce Neal, Robert N Doughty, Yannan Jiang, Cliona Ni Mhurchu

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of early death worldwide, responsible for an estimated 29% of all global deaths. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure and risk of secondary cardiac events. However, identifying low salt foods can be challenging. SaltSwitch is a simple smartphone application (app) that enables shoppers to scan the barcode of packaged foods and receive an immediate, interpretive, traffic light nutrition label on the screen, along with suggestions for healthier lower-salt alternatives. A growing body of evidence suggests mobile technologies can support healthy behaviour change. However, robust evidence for the impact of smartphone interventions is lacking. This manuscript outlines the rationale and methods for a randomized controlled trial designed to determine the effectiveness of SaltSwitch in supporting people with CVD to make lower-salt food choices.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 247 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 244 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 21%
Student > Bachelor 36 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 13%
Researcher 27 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 8%
Other 41 17%
Unknown 39 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 17%
Psychology 24 10%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Other 51 21%
Unknown 51 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 November 2014.
All research outputs
#1,702,458
of 15,261,320 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,037
of 10,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,008
of 204,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,261,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,544 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 204,087 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them