↓ Skip to main content

Designing equitable workplace dietary interventions: perceptions of intervention deliverers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Designing equitable workplace dietary interventions: perceptions of intervention deliverers
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4810-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah A. Smith, Shelina Visram, Claire O’Malley, Carolyn Summerbell, Vera Araujo-Soares, Frances Hillier-Brown, Amelia A. Lake

Abstract

Workplaces are a good setting for interventions that aim to support workers in achieving a healthier diet and body weight. However, little is known about the factors that impact on the feasibility and implementation of these interventions, and how these might vary by type of workplace and type of worker. The aim of this study was to explore the views of those involved in commissioning and delivering the Better Health at Work Award, an established and evidence-based workplace health improvement programme. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 individuals in North East England who had some level of responsibility for delivering workplace dietary interventions. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic framework analysis. A number of factors were felt to promote the feasibility and implementation of interventions. These included interventions that were cost-neutral (to employee and employer), unstructured, involved colleagues for support, took place at lunchtimes, and were well-advertised and communicated via a variety of media. Offering incentives, not necessarily monetary, was perceived to increase recruitment rates. Factors that militate against feasibility and implementation of interventions included worksites that were large in size and remote, working patterns including shifts and working outside of normal working hours that were not conducive to workers being able to access intervention sessions, workplaces without appropriate provision for healthy food on site, and a lack of support from management. Intervention deliverers perceived that workplace dietary interventions should be equally and easily accessible (in terms of cost and timing of sessions) for all staff, regardless of their job role. Additional effort should be taken to ensure those staff working outside normal working hours, and those working off-site, can easily engage with any intervention, to avoid the risk of intervention-generated inequalities (IGIs).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 38 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Psychology 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 41 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 22 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,954,960
of 24,838,271 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,422
of 16,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,028
of 331,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#51
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,838,271 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 16,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 331,485 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 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 70% of its contemporaries.