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 |
Economic analysis of three interventions of different intensity in improving school implementation of a government healthy canteen policy in Australia: costs, incremental and relative cost effectiveness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-018-5315-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kathryn L. Reilly, Penny Reeves, Simon Deeming, Sze Lin Yoong, Luke Wolfenden, Nicole Nathan, John Wiggers |
| Abstract |
No evaluations of the cost or cost effectiveness of interventions to increase school implementation of food availability policies have been reported. Government and non-government agency decisions regarding the extent of investment required to enhance school implementation of such policies are unsupported by such evidence. This study sought to i) Determine cost and cost-effectiveness of three interventions in improving school implementation of an Australian government healthy canteen policy and; ii) Determine the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions in improving school implementation of such a policy. An analysis of the cost and cost-effectiveness of three implementation interventions of varying support intensity, relative to usual implementation support conducted during 2013-2015 was undertaken. Secondly, an indirect comparison of the trials was undertaken to determine the most cost-effective of the three strategies. The economic analysis was based on the cost of delivering the interventions by health service delivery staff to increase the proportion of schools 'adherent' with the policy. The total costs per school were $166,971, $70,926 and $75,682 for the high, medium and low intensity interventions respectively. Compared to usual support, the cost effectiveness ratios for each of the three interventions were: A$2982 (high intensity), A$2627 (medium intensity) and A$4730 (low intensity) per percent increase in proportion of schools reporting 'adherence'). Indirect comparison between the 'high' and 'medium intensity' interventions showed no statistically significant difference in cost-effectiveness. The results indicate that while the cost profiles of the interventions varied substantially, the cost-effectiveness did not. This result is valuable to policy makers seeking cost-effective solutions that can be delivered within budget. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 50% |
| Ireland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 89 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 33 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 33 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#13,508,179
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,561
of 14,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,597
of 332,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#249
of 316 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,999 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 332,278 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 316 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.