↓ Skip to main content

Response bias to a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 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
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Response bias to a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional analysis
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5939-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam Bayley, Daniel Stahl, Mark Ashworth, Derek G. Cook, Peter H. Whincup, Janet Treasure, Anne Greenough, Katie Ridge, Kirsty Winkley, Khalida Ismail

Abstract

Research evaluating lifestyle interventions for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) may not reach those most at risk. We compared the response rate to a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a lifestyle intervention by CVD risk, ethnicity and level of deprivation. Primary care patients with a QRisk2 score ≥ 20% were invited to participate in a RCT of an intensive lifestyle intervention versus usual care. This cross-sectional analysis compares anonymised data of responders and non-responders with multiple logistic regression, using adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for QRisk2 score, ethnicity, Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2010) quintile, age and sex. From 60 general practices, 8902 patients were invited and 1489 responded. The mean age was 67.3 years and 21.0% were female. Of all patients invited, 69.9% were of white ethnic background, 13.9% ethnic minority backgrounds and 16.2% had no ethnicity data recorded in their medical records. Likelihood of response decreased as QRisk2 score increased (AOR 0.82 per 5 percentage points, 95% CI 0.77-0.88). Black African or Caribbean patients (AOR 0.67; 95% CI 0.45-0.98) and those with missing ethnicity data (AOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.46-0.66) were less likely to respond compared to participants of white ethnicity, but there was no difference in the response rates between south Asian and white ethnicity (AOR 1.08; 95% CI 0.84-1.38). Patients residing in the fourth (AOR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.87) and fifth (AOR 0.52; 95% CI 0.40-0.68) most deprived IMD quintile were less likely to respond compared to the least deprived quintile. Evaluations of interventions intended for those at high risk of CVD may fail to reach those at highest risk. Hard to reach patient groups may require different recruitment strategies to maximise participation in future trials. Improvements in primary care ethnicity data recording is required to aid understanding of how successfully study samples represent the target population. ISRCTN, ISRCTN84864870. Registered 15 May 2012, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN84864870 .

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 41 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 46 46%
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 13 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,625,854
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,679
of 15,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,168
of 335,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#197
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 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 15,065 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 335,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.