↓ Skip to main content

The 2017 Dutch Physical Activity Guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
37 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
406 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
The 2017 Dutch Physical Activity Guidelines
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12966-018-0661-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rianne M. Weggemans, Frank J. G. Backx, Lars Borghouts, Mai Chinapaw, Maria T. E. Hopman, Annemarie Koster, Stef Kremers, Luc J. C. van Loon, Anne May, Arend Mosterd, Hidde P. van der Ploeg, Tim Takken, Marjolein Visser, G. C. (Wanda) Wendel-Vos, Eco J. C. de Geus, Committee Dutch Physical Activity Guidelines 2017

Abstract

The objective of this study was to derive evidence-based physical activity guidelines for the general Dutch population. Two systematic reviews were conducted of English language meta-analyses in PubMed summarizing separately randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies on the relation between physical activity and sedentary behaviour on the one hand and the risk of all-cause mortality and incidence of 15 major chronic diseases and conditions on the other hand. Other outcome measures were risk factors for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, physical functioning, and fitness. On the basis of these reviews, an expert committee derived physical activity guidelines. In deriving the guidelines, the committee first selected only experimental and observational prospective findings with a strong level of evidence and then integrated both lines of evidence. The evidence found for beneficial effects on a large number of the outcome measures was sufficiently strong to draw up guidelines to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour, respectively. At the same time, the current evidence did not provide a sufficient basis for quantifying how much physical activity is minimally needed to achieve beneficial health effects, or at what amount sedentary behaviour becomes detrimental. A general tenet was that at every level of current activity, further increases in physical activity provide additional health benefits, with relatively larger effects among those who are currently not active or active only at light intensity. Three specific guidelines on (1) moderate- and vigorous-intensity physical activity, (2) bone- and muscle-strengthening activities, and (3) sedentary behaviour were formulated separately for adults and children. There is an unabated need for evidence-based physical activity guidelines that can guide public health policies. Research in which physical activity is measured both objectively (quantity) and subjectively (type and quality) is needed to provide better estimates of the type and actual amount of physical activity required for health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 406 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 406 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 16%
Student > Bachelor 51 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 9%
Researcher 26 6%
Other 15 4%
Other 57 14%
Unknown 158 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 55 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 51 13%
Sports and Recreations 37 9%
Psychology 16 4%
Social Sciences 15 4%
Other 48 12%
Unknown 184 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 10 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,096,655
of 25,292,646 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#362
of 2,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,518
of 336,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#14
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 336,156 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 93% 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 63% of its contemporaries.