↓ Skip to main content

Understanding how outcomes are measured in workplace physical activity interventions: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2018
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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 how outcomes are measured in workplace physical activity interventions: a scoping review
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5980-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stacey Johnson, Jean-Philippe Regnaux, Adrien Marck, Geoffroy Berthelot, Joana Ungureanu, Jean-François Toussaint

Abstract

An inverse relationship exists between physical activity and many non-communicable diseases, such as obesity. Given the daily time spent, a logical domain to reach an adult population for intervention is within and around the workplace. Many government bodies, including the World Health Organization (WHO), include worksite health promotions (WHPs) targeted at increasing physical activity as a public health intervention. The aim of this scoping review was to determine what was measured (outcomes) and how they were measured (evaluation tools) during workplace physical activity interventions in order to identify gaps and implications for policies and practice. A scoping review was executed in April 2017 via PubMed, SPORTDiscus, EBSCOhost and the Cochrane Library. This search included articles published between January 2008 to February 2017 in order to coincide with the WHO's Global Plan of Action on Worker's Health. Extracted information was arranged into data collection grids. Cross-analysis of measured outcomes with their corresponding evaluation tools was completed. A quality assessment based on study design was executed. Identification of 732 records was made and ultimately 20 studies and reviews that met criteria were selected. Researchers themed 9 primary measured outcomes. Studies utilized various forms of both objective and subjective evaluation methods. Three primary evaluation methods were categorized: biologic, electronic and declarative tools. The researchers discovered 92 unique tools: 27 objective and 65 subjective, within these parameters. Study quality, measurement tools and data collection were heterogeneous making analysis of effect comparisons problematic and unreliable. Much of the published research does not employ robust statistical analysis making effects difficult to ascertain. Considering the variety of both measured outcomes and evaluation tools, only educated inferences can be made as to the effectiveness and efficiency of WHPs. More standardized measurement practices are therefore suggested for assessment efficiency.

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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Professor 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 31 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 22%
Sports and Recreations 9 10%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 33 38%
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 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,192,040
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,624
of 15,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,734
of 335,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#81
of 269 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 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 15,295 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 335,309 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 269 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 69% of its contemporaries.