↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of a walking programme to support adults with intellectual disabilities to increase physical activity: walk well cluster-randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
35 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
325 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
Effectiveness of a walking programme to support adults with intellectual disabilities to increase physical activity: walk well cluster-randomised controlled trial
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12966-015-0290-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig A. Melville, Fiona Mitchell, Kirsten Stalker, Lynsay Matthews, Alex McConnachie, Heather M. Murray, Chris Melling, Nanette Mutrie

Abstract

Programs to change health behaviours have been identified as one way to reduce health inequalities experienced by disadvantaged groups. The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a behaviour change programme to increase walking and reduce sedentary behaviour of adults with intellectual disabilities. We used a cluster randomised controlled design and recruited participants over 18 years old and not regularly involved in physical activity from intellectual disabilities community-based organisations. Assessments were carried out blind to allocation. Clusters of participants were randomly allocated to the Walk Well program or a 12-week waiting list control. Walk Well consisted of three face-to-face physical activity consultations incorporating behaviour change techniques, written resources for participants and carers, and an individualised, structured walking programme. The primary outcome measured with accelerometers was change in mean step count per day between baseline and 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included percentage time per day sedentary and in moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), body mass index (BMI), and subjective well being. One hundred two participants in 50 clusters were randomised. 82 (80.4 %) participants completed the primary outcome. 66.7 % of participants lived in the most deprived quintile on the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. At baseline, participants walked 4780 (standard deviation 2432) steps per day, spent 65.5 % (standard deviation 10.9) of time sedentary and 59 % percent had a body mass in the obesity range. After the walking programme, the difference between mean counts of the Walk Well and control group was 69.5 steps per day [95 % confidence interval (CI) -1054 to 1193.3]. There were no significant between group differences in percentage time sedentary 1.6 % (95 % CI -2.984 to 6.102), percentage time in MVPA 0.3 % (95 % CI -0.7 to 1.3), BMI -0.2 kg/m(2) (95 % CI -0.8 to 0.4) or subjective well-being 0.3 (95 % CI -0.9 to 1.5). This is the first published trial of a walking program for adults with intellectual disabilities. Positively changing physical activity and sedentary behaviours may require more intensive programmes or upstream approaches to address the multiple social disadvantages experienced by adults with intellectual disabilities. Since participants spent the majority of their time sedentary, home-based programmes to reduce sitting time may be a viable health improvement approach. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50494254.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 325 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Unknown 323 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 13%
Student > Bachelor 35 11%
Researcher 28 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 7%
Other 49 15%
Unknown 88 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 52 16%
Sports and Recreations 40 12%
Psychology 34 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 10%
Social Sciences 20 6%
Other 30 9%
Unknown 117 36%
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 07 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,227,850
of 24,702,628 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#436
of 2,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,670
of 279,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#11
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,702,628 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 2,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 279,930 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 37 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 72% of its contemporaries.