↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative analysis exploring preferred methods of peer support to encourage adherence to a Mediterranean diet in a Northern European population at high risk of cardiovascular disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
A qualitative analysis exploring preferred methods of peer support to encourage adherence to a Mediterranean diet in a Northern European population at high risk of cardiovascular disease
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5078-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina M. Erwin, Claire T. McEvoy, Sarah E. Moore, Lindsay Prior, Julia Lawton, Frank Kee, Margaret E. Cupples, Ian S. Young, Katherine Appleton, Michelle C. McKinley, Jayne V. Woodside

Abstract

Epidemiological and randomised controlled trial evidence demonstrates that adherence to a Mediterranean diet (MD) can reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. However, methods used to support dietary change have been intensive and expensive. Peer support has been suggested as a possible cost-effective method to encourage adherence to a MD in at risk populations, although development of such a programme has not been explored. The purpose of this study was to use mixed-methods to determine the preferred peer support approach to encourage adherence to a MD. Qualitative (focus groups) and quantitative methods (questionnaire and preference scoring sheet) were used to determine preferred methods of peer support. Sixty-seven high CVD risk participants took part in 12 focus groups (60% female, mean age 64 years) and completed a questionnaire and preference scoring sheet. Focus group data were transcribed and thematically analysed. The mean preference score (1 being most preferred and 5 being least preferred) for group support was 1.5, compared to 3.4 for peer mentorship, 4.0 for telephone peer support and 4.0 for internet peer support. Three key themes were identified from the transcripts: 1. Components of an effective peer support group: discussions around group peer support were predominantly positive. It was suggested that an effective group develops from people who consider themselves similar to each other meeting face-to-face, leading to the development of a group identity that embraces trust and honesty. 2. Catalysing Motivation: participants discussed that a group peer support model could facilitate interpersonal motivations including encouragement, competitiveness and accountability. 3. Stepping Stones of Change: participants conceptualised change as a process, and discussed that, throughout the process, different models of peer support might be more or less useful. A group-based approach was the preferred method of peer support to encourage a population at high risk of CVD to adhere to a MD. This finding should be recognised in the development of interventions to encourage adoption of a MD in a Northern European population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Student > Master 11 12%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 40 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Psychology 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 43 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,579,722
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,633
of 14,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,780
of 437,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#217
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 437,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.