↓ Skip to main content

A stepped-wedge implementation and evaluation of the healthy active peaceful playgrounds for youth (HAPPY) intervention

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
21 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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 stepped-wedge implementation and evaluation of the healthy active peaceful playgrounds for youth (HAPPY) intervention
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5397-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dean Dudley, Wayne Cotton, Louisa Peralta, Matthew Winslade

Abstract

Increasing physical activity in children is a health priority. The Healthy Active Peaceful Playgrounds for Youth (HAPPY) study aimed to examine a multi-component playground intervention designed to increase the proportion of physical activity during recess and lunch of primary school students. The 2016 Australian focused HAPPY Study was a 12-month, metropolitan primary school based intervention, which was evaluated using a stepped wedge design. The intervention combined teacher development, environmental modifications, and peer support, with the outcomes of increasing physical activity, and analysing students' sources of social support to be physically active. Between baseline and follow-up, the proportion of students involved in vigorous activities during recess and lunch times increased significantly from 15 to 25% (p < 0.001). No differences were recorded in sources of social support. The HAPPY project demonstrated an increase in the proportion of physical activity intensity during recess and lunch times in primary schools, although further investigation is required to determine what components of the study had the greatest effect. This study was retrospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000575437 . Date of registration: 4 May 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 36 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Psychology 7 7%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 40 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 17 February 2019.
All research outputs
#562,669
of 14,334,469 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#553
of 9,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,686
of 275,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,334,469 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,862 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 275,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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