↓ Skip to main content

Exposure to revised drinking guidelines and ‘COM-B’ determinants of behaviour change: descriptive analysis of a monthly cross-sectional survey in England

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Exposure to revised drinking guidelines and ‘COM-B’ determinants of behaviour change: descriptive analysis of a monthly cross-sectional survey in England
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5129-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abigail K. Stevely, Penny Buykx, Jamie Brown, Emma Beard, Susan Michie, Petra S. Meier, John Holmes

Abstract

January 2016 saw the publication of proposed revisions to the UK's lower risk drinking guidelines but no sustained promotional activity. This paper aims to explore the impact of publishing guidelines without sustained promotional activity on reported guideline exposure and determinants of behaviour (capability, opportunity and motivation) proposed by the COM-B model. Data were collected by a monthly repeat cross-sectional survey of adults (18+) resident in England over 15 months between November 2015 and January 2017 from a total of 16,779 drinkers, as part of the Alcohol Toolkit Study. Trends and associated 95% confidence intervals were described in the proportion of reported exposure to guidelines in the past month and measures of the capability, opportunity and motivation to consume alcohol within drinking guidelines. There was a rise in reported exposure to drinking guidelines in January 2016 (57.6-80.6%) which did not reoccur in January 2017. Following the increase in January 2016, reported exposure reduced slowly but remained significantly higher than in December 2015. In February 2016, there was an increase in measures of capability (31.1% reported tracking units of alcohol consumption and 87.8% considered it easier to drink safely) and opportunity (84.0% perceived their lifestyle as conducive to drinking within guidelines). This change was not maintained in subsequent months. Other measures showed marginal changes between January and February 2016 with no evidence of change in subsequent months. Following the publication of revised drinking guideline in January 2016, there was a transient increase in exposure to guidelines, and capability and opportunity to drink within the guidelines that diminished over time. The transience and size of the changes indicate that behaviour change is unlikely. Well-designed, theory-based promotional campaigns may be required for drinking guidelines to be an effective public health intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 15%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Other 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 21%
Psychology 13 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 22 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 02 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,535,722
of 24,989,834 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,966
of 16,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,101
of 457,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#85
of 288 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,989,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,650 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 82% 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 457,197 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 288 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.