↓ Skip to main content

A checklist to improve reporting of group-based behaviour-change interventions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2015
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
49 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 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
A checklist to improve reporting of group-based behaviour-change interventions
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2300-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aleksandra J. Borek, Charles Abraham, Jane R. Smith, Colin J. Greaves, Mark Tarrant

Abstract

Published descriptions of group-based behaviour-change interventions (GB-BCIs) often omit design and delivery features specific to the group setting. This impedes the ability to compare behaviour-change interventions, synthesise evidence on their effectiveness and replicate effective interventions. The aim of this study was to develop a checklist of elements that should be described to ensure adequate reporting of GB-BCIs. A range of characteristics needed to replicate GB-BCIs were extracted from the literature and precisely defined. An abbreviated checklist and a coder manual were developed, pilot tested and refined. The final checklist and coder manual were used to identify the presence or absence of specified reporting elements in 30 published descriptions of GB-BCIs by two independent coders. Reliability of coding was assessed. The checklist comprises 26 essential reporting elements, covering intervention design, intervention content, participant characteristics, and facilitator characteristics. Inter-rater reliability for identification of reporting elements was high (95 % agreement, Mean AC1 = 0.89). The checklist is a practical tool that can be used, alongside other reporting guidelines, to ensure comprehensive description and to assess reporting quality of GB-BCIs. It can also be helpful for designing group-based health interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 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 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 175 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 15%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 39 22%
Unknown 35 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 18%
Psychology 31 17%
Social Sciences 19 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 43 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 2020.
All research outputs
#1,181,658
of 24,284,650 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,298
of 16,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,264
of 279,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#26
of 276 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,284,650 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 16,010 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 279,622 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 276 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.