↓ Skip to main content

Physical activity and sedentary behaviour research in Thailand: a systematic scoping review

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

7 tweeters


15 Dimensions

Readers on

293 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.
Physical activity and sedentary behaviour research in Thailand: a systematic scoping review
Published in
BMC Public Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5643-y
Pubmed ID

Nucharapon Liangruenrom, Kanyapat Suttikasem, Melinda Craike, Jason A. Bennie, Stuart J. H. Biddle, Zeljko Pedisic


The number of deaths per year attributed to non-communicable diseases is increasing in low- and middle-income countries, including Thailand. To facilitate the development of evidence-based public health programs and policies in Thailand, research on physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) is needed. The aims of this scoping review were to: (i) map all available evidence on PA and SB in Thailand; (ii) identify research gaps; and (iii) suggest directions for future research. A systematic literature search was conducted through 10 bibliographic databases. Additional articles were identified through secondary searches of reference lists, websites of relevant Thai health organisations, Google, and Google Scholar. Studies written in Thai or English were screened independently by two authors and included if they presented quantitative or qualitative data relevant to public health research on PA and/or SB. Out of 25,007 screened articles, a total of 564 studies were included in the review. Most studies included PA only (80%), 6.7% included SB only, and 13.3% included both PA and SB. The most common research focus was correlates (58.9%), followed by outcomes of PA/SB (22.2%), prevalence of PA/SB (12.4%), and instrument validation (3.2%). Most PA/SB research was cross-sectional (69.3%), while interventions (19.7%) and longitudinal studies (2.8%) were less represented. Most studies (94%) used self-reports of PA/SB, and few (2.5%) used device-based measures. Both sexes were examined in most studies (82.5%). Adults were the main target population group (51.1%), followed by older adults (26.9%), adolescents (15.7%), and children (6.3%). Clinical populations were investigated in the context of PA/SB in a relatively large number of studies (15.3%), most frequently those with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and hypertension (22%, 21%, and 21% respectively). The number of Thai papers on PA published per year has been increasing, indicating a growing interest in this research area. More studies using population-representative samples are needed, particularly among children and adolescents, and investigating SB as a health risk factor. To provide stronger evidence on determinants and outcomes of PA/SB, longitudinal studies using standardised measures of PA and SB are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 293 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 19%
Student > Bachelor 33 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 7%
Other 14 5%
Student > Postgraduate 14 5%
Other 46 16%
Unknown 110 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 49 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 15%
Sports and Recreations 22 8%
Psychology 14 5%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Other 33 11%
Unknown 118 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 September 2020.
All research outputs
of 18,800,073 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
of 12,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 291,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,800,073 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 291,121 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 67% 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