↓ Skip to main content

A cluster randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of an individual planning intervention with collaborative planning in adolescent friendship dyads to enhance physical activity (TWOgeth…

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 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 cluster randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of an individual planning intervention with collaborative planning in adolescent friendship dyads to enhance physical activity (TWOgether)
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5818-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theda Radtke, Aleksandra Luszczynska, Konstantin Schenkel, Stuart Biddle, Urte Scholz

Abstract

Most adolescents do not meet the recommendations for physical activity (PA) of at least 1 h per day. Individual planning (IP) interventions, including forming plans for when, where and how (action planning) to engage in a behavior, as well as the planning for how to deal with arising barriers (coping planning), are effective to enhance PA in adults. Collaborative planning (CP) is conjoint planning of two individuals regarding a behavior which is performed together. It is assumed that CP stimulates social exchange processes between the planning partners. However, it remains unclear whether planning interventions of PA in adolescents are successful and which planning intervention is more effective. Thus, this cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) examines changes in daily moderate-to-vigorous PA in adolescents' friendship dyads resulting from planning. Individual self-regulating mechanism and social exchange processes are proposed as mediating mechanisms of the effects of planning for health behavior change. A single-blind four-arm parallel-group cluster-RCT is used. The sample consists of 400 friendship dyads between 14 and 18 years of age. As the recruitment takes place in schools, a cluster randomization of the schools is used to enroll dyads to (a) an IP intervention, (b) a CP intervention or (c) one of the two no-planning control conditions. Devise-measured and self-reported PA as the primary outcomes, self-regulatory strategies, and social exchange processes as secondary outcomes are assessed at three or four time points. After baseline measurement, the baseline ecological momentary assessment of the main variables takes place for 8 days followed by the intervention and a 7-days diary phase. Follow-ups are 1 month and 6 months later. Subsequent to the six-month follow-up, another 7-days diary phase takes place. This is the first study examining IP in comparison to CP in adolescents applying a single-blind cluster RCT. Consequently, the study allows for understanding the efficacy of individual and collaborative planning and the underlying mechanisms in adolescent dyads. This RCT was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (100019_169781/1) and was registered on 18/06/2018 at ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03575559 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 125 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Researcher 5 4%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 53 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Psychology 14 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 9%
Sports and Recreations 9 7%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 56 45%
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 25 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,622,705
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,679
of 15,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,591
of 329,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#247
of 318 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,063 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 329,806 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 318 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.