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 |
Good practice characteristics of diet and physical activity interventions and policies: an umbrella review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-015-1354-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karolina Horodyska, Aleksandra Luszczynska, Matthijs van den Berg, Marieke Hendriksen, Gun Roos, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Johannes Brug |
| Abstract |
BackgroundThis umbrella review aimed at eliciting good practice characteristics of interventions and policies aiming at healthy diet, increasing physical activity, and lowering sedentary behaviors. Applying the World Health Organization¿s framework, we sought for 3 types of characteristics, reflecting: (1) main intervention/policy characteristics, referring to the design, targets, and participants, (2) monitoring and evaluation processes, and (3) implementation issues. This investigation was undertaken by the DEDPIAC Knowledge Hub (the Knowledge Hub on the DEterminants of DIet and Physical ACtivity), which is an action of the European Union¿s joint programming initiative.MethodsA systematic review of reviews and stakeholder documents was conducted. Data from 7 databases was analyzed (99 documents met inclusion criteria). Additionally, resources of 7 major stakeholders (e.g., World Health Organization) were systematically searched (10 documents met inclusion criteria). Overall, the review yielded 74 systematic reviews, 16 position review papers, and 19 stakeholders¿ documents. Across characteristics, 25% were supported by¿¿¿4 systematic reviews. Further, 25% characteristics were supported by¿¿¿3 stakeholders¿ documents. If identified characteristics were included in at least 4 systematic reviews or at least 3 stakeholders¿ documents, these good practice characteristics were classified as relevant.ResultsWe derived a list of 149 potential good practice characteristics, of which 53 were classified as relevant. The main characteristics of intervention/policy (n¿=¿18) fell into 6 categories: the use of theory, participants, target behavior, content development/management, multidimensionality, practitioners/settings. Monitoring and evaluation characteristics (n¿=¿18) were grouped into 6 categories: costs/funding, outcomes, evaluation of effects, time/effect size, reach, the evaluation of participation and generalizability, active components/underlying processes. Implementation characteristics (n¿=¿17) were grouped into eight categories: participation processes, training for practitioners, the use/integration of existing resources, feasibility, maintenance/sustainability, implementation partnerships, implementation consistency/adaptation processes, transferability.ConclusionsThe use of the proposed list of 53 good practice characteristics may foster further development of health promotion sciences, as it would allow for identification of success vectors in the domains of main characteristics of interventions/policies, their implementation, evaluation and monitoring processes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 | 15 | 28% |
| Australia | 4 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 6% |
| Belgium | 3 | 6% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 25 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 54% |
| Scientists | 18 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 197 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 16% |
| Researcher | 29 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 34 | 17% |
| Unknown | 42 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 25 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 19 | 9% |
| Psychology | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 14% |
| Unknown | 55 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 19 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,122,440
of 25,328,635 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,227
of 16,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,168
of 364,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#21
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,328,635 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 364,154 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.