↓ Skip to main content

Tools for a systematic appraisal of integrated community-based approaches to prevent childhood obesity

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2018
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Tools for a systematic appraisal of integrated community-based approaches to prevent childhood obesity
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5042-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Mantziki, C. M. Renders, M. J. Westerman, J. Mayer, J. M. Borys, J. C. Seidell

Abstract

Evaluation and monitoring methods are often unable to identify crucial elements of success or failure of integrated community-wide approaches aiming to tackle childhood overweight and obesity, yet difficult to determine in complex programmes. Therefore, we aimed to systematically appraise strengths and weaknesses of such programmes and to assess the usefulness of the appraisal tools used. To identify strengths and weaknesses of the integrated community-based approaches two tools were used: the Good Practice Appraisal tool for obesity prevention programmes, projects, initiatives and intervention (GPAT), a self-administered questionnaire developed by the WHO; and the OPEN tool, a structured list of questions based on the EPODE theory, to assist face-to-face interviews with the principle programme coordinators. The strengths and weaknesses of these tools were assessed with regard to practicalities, quality of acquired data and the appraisal process, criteria and scoring. Several strengths and weaknesses were identified in all the assessed integrated community-based approaches, different for each of them. The GPAT provided information mostly on intervention elements whereas through the OPEN tool information on both the programme and intervention levels were acquired. Large variability between integrated community-wide approaches preventing childhood obesity in the European region was identified and therefore each of them has different needs. Both tools used in combination seem to facilitate comprehensive assessment of integrated community-wide approaches in a systematic manner, which is rarely conducted. Nonetheless, the tools should be improved in line to their limitations as recommended in this manuscript.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 32%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Sports and Recreations 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 13 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,255,626
of 15,922,193 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,405
of 10,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,113
of 368,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,193 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 368,647 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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