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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effectiveness of eHealth interventions for the promotion of physical activity in older adults: a systematic review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0223-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Saskia Muellmann, Sarah Forberger, Tobias Möllers, Hajo Zeeb, Claudia R Pischke |
| Abstract |
It is known that regular physical activity (PA) is associated with improvements in physical, psychological, cognitive, and functional health outcomes. The World Health Organization recommends 150 min of moderate exercise per week for older adults to achieve these health benefits. However, only 20-60 % of adults aged 60 years and above currently meet these recommendations for exercise. The widespread use of the internet and mobile phones among older adults may open new opportunities to promote PA in this population. Findings of previous reviews suggest that eHealth interventions are effective in promoting PA in adults of various ages. However, to date, none of these reviews have provided a differentiated picture of engagement in such interventions and effects on PA among older adults. Also, we are unaware of any studies comparing effects of participation in eHealth vs. traditional paper-and-pencil interventions on PA in this population. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness of eHealth interventions promoting PA in older adults aged 55 years and above with either a non-eHealth PA intervention or a group that is not exposed to any intervention. Eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PEI, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and OpenGrey) will be searched to identify experimental and quasi-experimental studies examining the effectiveness of eHealth interventions for PA promotion in adults aged 55 years and above. Two authors will independently select and review references, extract data, and assess the quality of the included studies by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Disagreements between authors will be resolved by discussion involving a third author. If feasible, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Narrative synthesis using harvest plots will be performed, should a meta-analysis not be feasible. The proposed systematic review will be the first review that compares the effectiveness of eHealth interventions promoting PA in older adults aged 55 years and above with control groups exposed to a non-eHealth intervention or to no intervention. The results of this review will provide new information regarding the question whether eHealth interventions are an effective intervention vehicle for PA promotion in this population. PROSPERO CRD42015023875. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 2 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Argentina | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Colombia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 31% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 208 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 13% |
| Researcher | 24 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 40 | 19% |
| Unknown | 47 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 33 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 10% |
| Psychology | 17 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 40 | 19% |
| Unknown | 57 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 10 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,717,904
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#481
of 2,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,770
of 306,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#6
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 306,893 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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.