↓ Skip to main content

Adherence to exercise referral schemes by participants – what do providers and commissioners need to know? A systematic review of barriers and facilitators

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
43 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 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
Adherence to exercise referral schemes by participants – what do providers and commissioners need to know? A systematic review of barriers and facilitators
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2882-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Morgan, Alysia Battersby, Alison L Weightman, Lydia Searchfield, Ruth Turley, Helen Morgan, James Jagroo, Simon Ellis

Abstract

Physical inactivity levels are rising worldwide with major implications for the health of the population and the prevalence of non-communicable diseases. Exercise referral schemes (ERS) continue to be a popular intervention utilised by healthcare practitioners to increase physical activity. We undertook a systematic review of views studies in order to inform guidance from the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on exercise referral schemes to promote physical activity. This paper reports on the participant views identified, to inform those seeking to refine schemes to increase attendance and adherence. Fifteen databases and a wide range of websites and grey literature sources were searched systematically for publications from 1995 to June 2013. In addition, a range of supplementary methods including, a call for evidence by NICE, contacting authors, reference list checking and citation tracking were utilised to identify additional research. Studies were included where they detailed schemes for adults aged 19 years or older who were 'inactive' (i.e. they are not currently meeting UK physical activity guidelines). Study selection was conducted independently in duplicate. Quality assessment was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second, with 20 % of papers being considered independently in duplicate. Papers were coded in qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti. This review was reported in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement). Evidence from 33 UK-relevant studies identified that support from providers, other attendees and family was an important facilitator of adherence and 'making exercise a habit' post programme, as was the variety and personalised nature of sessions offered. Barriers to attendance included the inconvenient timing of sessions, their cost and location. An intimidating gym atmosphere, a dislike of the music and TV and a lack of confidence in operating gym equipment were frequently reported. These findings provide valuable insights that commissioners and providers should consider. The main themes were consistent across a large number of studies and further research should concentrate on programmes that reflect these findings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 268 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 16%
Student > Bachelor 39 14%
Researcher 35 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 56 21%
Unknown 49 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 55 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 10%
Psychology 26 10%
Social Sciences 22 8%
Other 38 14%
Unknown 57 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 29 May 2022.
All research outputs
#923,846
of 21,436,792 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#985
of 13,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,574
of 280,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,436,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 280,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them