↓ Skip to main content

Interpreting population reach of a large, successful physical activity trial delivered through primary care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Interpreting population reach of a large, successful physical activity trial delivered through primary care
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5034-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally M. Kerry, Katy E. Morgan, Elizabeth Limb, Derek G. Cook, Cheryl Furness, Iain Carey, Steve DeWilde, Christina R. Victor, Steve Iliffe, Peter Whincup, Michael Ussher, Ulf Ekelund, Julia Fox-Rushby, Judith Ibison, Tess Harris

Abstract

Failure to include socio-economically deprived or ethnic minority groups in physical activity (PA) trials may limit representativeness and could lead to implementation of interventions that then increase health inequalities. Randomised intervention trials often have low recruitment rates and rarely assess recruitment bias. A previous trial by the same team using similar methods recruited 30% of the eligible population but was in an affluent setting with few non-white residents and was limited to those over 60 years of age. PACE-UP is a large, effective, population-based walking trial in inactive 45-75 year-olds that recruited through seven London general practices. Anonymised practice demographic data were available for all those invited, enabling investigation of inequalities in trial recruitment. Non-participants were invited to complete a questionnaire. From 10,927 postal invitations, 1150 (10.5%) completed baseline assessment. Participation rate ratios (95% CI), adjusted for age and gender as appropriate, were lower in men 0.59 (0.52, 0.67) than women, in those under 55 compared with those ≥65, 0.60 (0.51, 0.71), in the most deprived quintile compared with the least deprived 0.52 (0.39, 0.70) and in Asian individuals compared with whites 0.62 (0.50, 0.76). Black individuals were equally likely to participate as white individuals. Participation was also associated with having a co-morbidity or some degree of health limitation. The most common reasons for non-participation were considering themselves as being too active or lack of time. Conducting the trial in this diverse setting reduced overall response, with lower response in socio-economically deprived and Asian sub-groups. Trials with greater reach are likely to be more expensive in terms of recruitment and gains in generalizability need to be balanced with greater costs. Differential uptake of successful trial interventions may increase inequalities in PA levels and should be monitored. ISRCTN.com ISRCTN98538934 . Registered 2nd March 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 144 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Lecturer 6 4%
Other 29 20%
Unknown 50 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 8%
Sports and Recreations 10 7%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 57 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 January 2018.
All research outputs
#8,081,238
of 25,165,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,606
of 16,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,354
of 453,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#178
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,165,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 453,259 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.