↓ Skip to main content

Physical activity referral to cardiac rehabilitation, leisure centre or telephone-delivered consultations in post-surgical people with breast cancer: a mixed methods process evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Physical activity referral to cardiac rehabilitation, leisure centre or telephone-delivered consultations in post-surgical people with breast cancer: a mixed methods process evaluation
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40814-018-0297-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gill Hubbard, Anna Campbell, Abi Fisher, Michelle Harvie, Wendy Maltinsky, Russell Mullen, Elspeth Banks, Jackie Gracey, Trish Gorely, Julie Munro, Gozde Ozakinci

Abstract

Physical activity (PA) programmes effective under 'research' conditions may not be effective under 'real-world' conditions. A potential solution is to refer patients to existing PA community-based PA services. A process evaluation of referral of post-surgical patients with early-stage breast cancer to cardiac rehabilitation exercise classes, leisure centre with 3-month free leisure centre membership or telephone-delivered PA consultations for 12 weeks. Quantitative data were collected about PA programme uptake and reach, patient engagement with the PA programme, delivery and fidelity and PA dose. Qualitative data were collected about patient experiences of taking part in the PA programmes. Audio-recorded qualitative interviews of participants about the programmes were analysed thematically. Quantitative data were reported descriptively using means and SD. In Phase I, 30% (n = 20) of eligible patients (n = 20) consented, 85% (n = 17) chose referral to leisure centre, and 15% (n = 3) chose cardiac rehabilitation. In Phase II, 32% (n = 12) consented, 25% (n = 3) chose leisure centre and 75% (n = 9) chose telephone-delivered PA consultations. Walking at light intensity for about an hour was the most common PA. All Phase I participants received an induction by a cardiac rehabilitation physiotherapist or PA specialist from the leisure centre but only 50% of Phase II participants received an induction by a PA specialist from the leisure centre. Four themes were identified from qualitative interviews about programme choice: concerns about physical appearance, travel distance, willingness to socialise and flexibility in relation to doing PA. Four themes were identified about facilitators and barriers for engaging in PA: feeling better, feeling ill, weight management, family and friends. The current community-based PA intervention is not yet suitable for a definitive effectiveness randomised controlled trial. Further work is needed to optimise PR programme reach, PA dose and intervention fidelity. ISRCTN11183372.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 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 %
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 30 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Sports and Recreations 5 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 37 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 June 2023.
All research outputs
#3,642,065
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#221
of 1,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,130
of 337,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#12
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 337,103 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 66% of its contemporaries.