↓ Skip to main content

Understanding for whom, under what conditions, and how group-based physical activity interventions are successful: a realist review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Understanding for whom, under what conditions, and how group-based physical activity interventions are successful: a realist review
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2270-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha M. Harden, Desmond McEwan, Benjamin D. Sylvester, Megan Kaulius, Geralyn Ruissen, Shauna M. Burke, Paul A. Estabrooks, Mark R. Beauchamp

Abstract

Participation in group-based physical activity (GBPA) interventions has been found to result in higher levels of exercise adherence and program compliance. However, previous reviews of GBPA programs have provided limited insight regarding 'for whom', 'under what conditions', and 'how' these interventions increase physical activity behavior. A realist review was conducted by following the seven recommended iterative and overlapping steps (J Health Serv Res Policy 10S1:21-34, 2005). The review was limited to group dynamics-based interventions for adults (>17 years of age). The search was conducted in PubMed, PsychInfo, and Web of Science search engines associated with the Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and MEDLINE. Using a realist review approach, data from 52 studies were synthesized. Of those, 92 % (n = 48) reported significant increases in participant physical activity. The synthesis resulted in three main observations and recommendations. GBPA interventions have worked for a variety of populations, including those who are hard to reach; however, more research is needed on moderating factors to determine for whom different GBPA programs may be effective. Second, previous interventions have varied in the duration, frequency, and number of group-based strategies used, and comparative effectiveness research may be necessary to isolate the mechanisms of effect. Third, these interventions have been conducted in a diverse range of settings, using a variety of research designs and analytical approaches. Less information is known about the costs or sustainability of these programs in their intended settings. The results of this realist review have important implications for practice, refining trial designs, and replication across diverse populations and settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 152 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 17%
Researcher 18 12%
Other 8 5%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 37 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 22 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 14%
Psychology 19 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Sports and Recreations 15 10%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 41 27%
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 25 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,400,529
of 24,363,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,946
of 16,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,430
of 279,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#71
of 276 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,363,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,085 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 279,414 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 276 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 74% of its contemporaries.