↓ Skip to main content

Impact of activity outcome and measurement instrument on estimates of youth compliance with physical activity guidelines: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Impact of activity outcome and measurement instrument on estimates of youth compliance with physical activity guidelines: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2901-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul R. Hibbing, Youngwon Kim, Pedro F. Saint-Maurice, Gregory J. Welk

Abstract

The national physical activity guidelines (PAG) in many countries recommend that youth accumulate 60 min or more of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) daily (PAG-MVPA). A daily target of ≥ 11,500 steps/day has been proposed as a step count alternative to this guideline (PAG-Steps). Contemporary activity monitors are capable of estimating both MVPA and steps, but it is not clear how these units compare when used to evaluate compliance with the national PAG. The purpose of this study was to compare prevalence estimates of meeting the PAG-MVPA and PAG-Steps using two commonly used monitors, the ActiGraph (AG) and SenseWear Armband (SWA). A sample of 69 children (25 girls and 44 boys) aged 9-16 years each wore a wrist-mounted AG and a SWA over a one-week period. Days with ≥10 h of wear time for both monitors were included in the analysis. Estimates of time spent in MVPA were obtained using the Crouter equation for the AG and from proprietary algorithms for the SWA. Step counts for the AG and SWA were directly obtained from the respective software. The prevalence of meeting the PAG-MVPA and PAG-Steps was compared within each monitor, using Cohen's kappa (κ) statistic. Agreement was similarly assessed between monitors using each guideline individually. When assessed with the AG, the prevalence of meeting PAG was substantially higher for the PAG-MVPA (87.2 %) than for the PAG-Steps (54.2 %), with fair classification agreement (κ = 0.30) between the two guidelines. Higher prevalence rates were also observed for the PAG-MVPA (83.6 %) than for the PAG-Steps (33.8 %) when assessed using the SWA, but the prevalence rates and classification agreement (κ = 0.18) were lower than the values from the AG. Classification agreement between AG and SWA was lower for the PAG-MVPA (κ = 0.42) than for the PAG-Steps (κ = 0.55). The results show differential patterns of compliance with the PAG-MVPA and PAG-Steps, as assessed by the AG and SWA. Additional research is needed to directly evaluate and compare findings from public health research based on different guidelines and measurement methods.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Lecturer 3 8%
Other 11 28%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 9 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Psychology 4 10%
Unspecified 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,163,670
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,520
of 14,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,254
of 298,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#110
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 298,620 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 227 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 51% of its contemporaries.