↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of the efficacy of self-management programs for increasing physical activity in community-dwelling adults with acquired brain injury (ABI)

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 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 systematic review of the efficacy of self-management programs for increasing physical activity in community-dwelling adults with acquired brain injury (ABI)
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0039-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taryn M Jones, Catherine M Dean, Julia M Hush, Blake F Dear, Nickolai Titov

Abstract

Individuals living with acquired brain injury, typically caused by stroke or trauma, are far less likely to achieve recommended levels of physical activity for optimal health and well-being. With a growing number of people living with chronic disease and disability globally, self-management programs are seen as integral to the management of these conditions and the prevention of secondary health conditions. However, to date, there has been no systematic review of the literature examining the efficacy of self-management programs specifically on physical activity in individuals with acquired brain injury, whether delivered face-to-face or remotely. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of self-management programs in increasing physical activity levels in adults living in the community following acquired brain injury. The efficacy of remote versus face-to-face delivery was also examined. A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Electronic databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened all studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and extracted relevant data. Five studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Studies were widely heterogeneous with respect to program content and delivery characteristics and outcomes, although all programs utilized behavioral change principles. Four of the five studies examined interventions in which physical activity was a component of a multifaceted intervention, where the depth to which physical activity specific content was covered, and the extent to which skills were taught and practiced, could not be clearly established. Three studies showed favorable physical activity outcomes following self-management interventions for stroke; however, risk of bias was high, and overall efficacy remains unclear. Although not used in isolation from face-to-face delivery, remote delivery via telephone was the predominant form of delivery in two studies with support for its inclusion in self-management programs for individuals following stroke. The efficacy of self-management programs in increasing physical activity levels in community-dwelling adults following acquired brain injury (ABI) is still unknown. Research into the efficacy of self-management programs specifically aimed at improving physical activity in adults living in the community following acquired brain injury is needed. The efficacy of remote delivery methods also warrants further investigation. PROSPERO CRD42013006748 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013006748.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 162 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 48 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 41 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 15%
Psychology 19 12%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Sports and Recreations 5 3%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 56 34%
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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#13,740,344
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,462
of 1,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,162
of 265,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#30
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 265,270 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.