↓ Skip to main content

Exploring participant appreciation of group-based principles for action in community-based physical activity programs for socially vulnerable groups in the Netherlands

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Exploring participant appreciation of group-based principles for action in community-based physical activity programs for socially vulnerable groups in the Netherlands
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2515-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marion Herens, Annemarie Wagemakers, Lenneke Vaandrager, Maria Koelen

Abstract

Physical inactivity is a core risk factor for non-communicable diseases. In the Netherlands, socially vulnerable groups are relatively less active than groups with higher socio-economic status. Community-based health-enhancing physical activity (CBHEPA) programs aim to empower socially vulnerable groups by improving participants' health and wellbeing through physical activity. CBHEPA programs often revolve around group-based principles for action, such as active participation, enjoyment, and fostering group processes. As such principles are rarely made explicit, our study aims to identify which of the group-based principles for action are considered important by participants. Respondents (n = 76) from ten focus groups scored their individual appreciation of group-based principles for action - active participation, enjoyment, and fostering group processes - on a three-point, statement-based scale. Opinions were further discussed in the focus group. Focus group discussions were transcribed and analysed by a team of investigators. The coding procedures, identifying elements appreciated in group-based principles for action, were thematic and data driven. Statements about participatory programming generated much less consensus in appreciation among respondents than statements about enjoyment and fostering group processes. To some extent, group members participated in the development of program content. Participation in group formation or community initiatives was less frequently perceived as something within group members' control. Enjoyment, expressed as physical and emotional experiences, was found to be an individual driver of group exercise. Fostering group processes, expressed as social support, was found to contribute to enjoyment and learning achievements. Responsive leadership, ensuring responsive guidance, by an enthusiastic exercise trainer acting as a role model, were identified as additional necessary principles for action. Group-based principles for action in CBHEPA programs are not clearly demarcated. Fostering group processes is an overarching principle, conditional for the spin-off in terms of enjoyment and active participation. This, in turn, leads to a sense of ownership among participants, who take up responsibility for the exercise group as well as their individual activity behaviour. CBHEPA programs thrive on participants having fun together and exercise trainers' leadership skills. A professional, competent, responsive exercise trainer plays a key role in the organisation and maintenance of CBHEPA programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 6 6%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 17 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Psychology 9 9%
Sports and Recreations 7 7%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 28 28%
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 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,932,114
of 24,178,331 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,745
of 15,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,671
of 395,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#153
of 225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,178,331 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,925 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 395,409 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 225 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.