↓ Skip to main content

Sedentary behaviour and physical activity in bronchiectasis: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 2,080)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
33 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 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
Sedentary behaviour and physical activity in bronchiectasis: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12890-015-0046-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Judy M Bradley, Jason J Wilson, Kate Hayes, Lisa Kent, Suzanne McDonough, Mark A Tully, Ian Bradbury, Alison Kirk, Denise Cosgrove, Rory Convery, Martin Kelly, Joseph Stuart Elborn, Brenda O’Neill

Abstract

The impact of bronchiectasis on sedentary behaviour and physical activity is unknown. It is important to explore this to identify the need for physical activity interventions and how to tailor interventions to this patient population. We aimed to explore the patterns and correlates of sedentary behaviour and physical activity in bronchiectasis. Physical activity was assessed in 63 patients with bronchiectasis using an ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer over seven days. Patients completed: questionnaires on health-related quality-of-life and attitudes to physical activity (questions based on an adaption of the transtheoretical model (TTM) of behaviour change); spirometry; and the modified shuttle test (MST). Multiple linear regression analysis using forward selection based on likelihood ratio statistics explored the correlates of sedentary behaviour and physical activity dimensions. Between-group analysis using independent sample t-tests were used to explore differences for selected variables. Fifty-five patients had complete datasets. Average daily time, mean(standard deviation) spent in sedentary behaviour was 634(77)mins, light-lifestyle physical activity was 207(63)mins and moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was 25(20)mins. Only 11% of patients met recommended guidelines. Forced expiratory volume in one-second percentage predicted (FEV1% predicted) and disease severity were not correlates of sedentary behaviour or physical activity. For sedentary behaviour, decisional balance 'pros' score was the only correlate. Performance on the MST was the strongest correlate of physical activity. In addition to the MST, there were other important correlate variables for MVPA accumulated in ≥10-minute bouts (QOL-B Social Functioning) and for activity energy expenditure (Body Mass Index and QOL-B Respiratory Symptoms). Patients with bronchiectasis demonstrated a largely inactive lifestyle and few met the recommended physical activity guidelines. Exercise capacity was the strongest correlate of physical activity, and dimensions of the QOL-B were also important. FEV1% predicted and disease severity were not correlates of sedentary behaviour or physical activity. The inclusion of a range of physical activity dimensions could facilitate in-depth exploration of patterns of physical activity. This study demonstrates the need for interventions targeted at reducing sedentary behaviour and increasing physical activity, and provides information to tailor interventions to the bronchiectasis population. NCT01569009 ("Physical Activity in Bronchiectasis").

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 159 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 16%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 34 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 17%
Sports and Recreations 11 7%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Psychology 7 4%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 47 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 21 August 2015.
All research outputs
#1,216,414
of 24,137,933 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#46
of 2,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,593
of 268,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,137,933 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 268,517 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.