↓ Skip to main content

Design and baseline characteristics of the PerfectFit study: a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of a lifestyle intervention in employees with increased cardiovascular risk

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 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
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
282 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
Design and baseline characteristics of the PerfectFit study: a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of a lifestyle intervention in employees with increased cardiovascular risk
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2059-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tessa A. Kouwenhoven-Pasmooij, Bosiljka Djikanovic, Suzan J. W. Robroek, Pieter Helmhout, Alex Burdorf, M. G. Myriam Hunink

Abstract

The prevalence of unhealthy lifestyles and preventable chronic diseases is high. They lead to disabilities and sickness absence, which might be reduced if health promotion measures were applied. Therefore, we developed the PerfectFit health promotion intervention with a "blended care"-approach, which consists of a web-based health risk assessment (HRA) including tailored and personalized advice, followed by motivational interviewing (MI). We hypothesize that adding MI to a web-based HRA leads to better health outcomes. The objective is to describe the design and baseline characteristics of the PerfectFit study, which is being conducted among employees with high cardiovascular risk in the military workforce, the police organization and an academic hospital. PerfectFit is a cluster randomized controlled trial, consisting of two arms. Based on cardiovascular risk profiling, done between 2012 and 2014, we included employees based on one or more risk factors and motivation to participate. One arm is the 'limited' health program (control) that consists of: (a) an HRA as a decision aid for lifestyle changes, including tailored and personalized advice, and pros and cons of the options, and (b) a newsletter every 3 months. The other arm is the 'extensive' program (intervention), which is additionally offered MI-sessions by trained occupational physicians, 4 face-to-face and 3 by telephone, and is offered more choices of health promotion activities in the HRA. During the follow-up period, participants choose the health promotion activities they personally prefer. After six and twelve months, outcomes will be assessed by online questionnaires. After twelve months the cardiovascular risk profiling will be repeated. The primary outcome is self-reported general health. Secondary outcomes are self-reported work ability, CVD-risk score, sickness absence, productivity loss at work, participation in health promotion activities, changes in lifestyle (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, stress management) and body mass index. Furthermore, a process evaluation and an economic analysis will be performed. Additional coaching using MI is expected to be a key factor for success of the web-based HRA in employees with increased cardiovascular risk. This "blended care"-approach may be an essential strategy for effective health promotion activities. Dutch Trial Register by registration number NTR4894 , 14/11/2014.

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 282 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 276 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 16%
Researcher 31 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 10%
Student > Bachelor 27 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 7%
Other 50 18%
Unknown 79 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 14%
Psychology 21 7%
Sports and Recreations 17 6%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Other 46 16%
Unknown 89 32%
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 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#13,747,855
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,914
of 14,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,945
of 263,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#193
of 284 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 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 14,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 263,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 284 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.