↓ Skip to main content

Challenges of a community based pragmatic, randomised controlled trial of weight loss maintenance

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Challenges of a community based pragmatic, randomised controlled trial of weight loss maintenance
Published in
BMC Research Notes, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1791-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Randell, Rachel McNamara, Christine Shaw, Aude Espinasse, Sharon Anne Simpson

Abstract

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have a reputation for being inherently difficult to deliver as planned and often face unforeseen challenges and delays, particularly in relation to organisational and governance difficulties, participant interest, constraints due to allocation of costs, local investigator interest and lengthy bureaucracy. Recruitment is often difficult and the challenges faced often impact on the cost and delivery of a successful trial within the funded period. This paper reflects upon the challenges faced in delivering a pragmatic RCT of weight loss maintenance in a community setting and suggests some potential solutions. The weight loss maintenance in adults trial aimed to evaluate the impact of a 12 month, individually tailored weight maintenance intervention on BMI 3 years from randomisation. Participants were recruited primarily from participant identification centres (PICs)-GP surgeries, exercise on referral schemes and slimming world. The intervention was delivered in community settings. A recruitment strategy implementation plan was drafted to address and monitor poor recruitment. Delays in opening and recruitment were experienced early on. Some were beyond the control of the study team such as; disagreement over allocation of national health service costs and PIC classification as well as difficulties in securing support from research networks. That the intervention was delivered in community settings was often at the root of these issues. Key items to address at the design stage of future trials include feasibility of eligibility criteria. The most effective element of the recruitment implementation plan was to refocus sources of recruitment and target only those who could fulfil the eligibility criteria immediately. Learnings from this trial should be kept in mind by those designing similar studies in the future. Considering potential governance, cost and research network support implications at the design stage of pragmatic trials of any community-based complex intervention is paramount. The appropriateness and viability of inclusion criteria also require careful consideration as does use of a targeted advertising strategy. ISRCTN35774128, 12/01/2010.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Sports and Recreations 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 18 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,910,035
of 15,922,255 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#620
of 3,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,603
of 369,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#62
of 410 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,255 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,486 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 369,886 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 410 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.