↓ Skip to main content

Variation in population levels of physical activity in European children and adolescents according to cross-European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
251 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
Variation in population levels of physical activity in European children and adolescents according to cross-European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12966-016-0396-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linde Van Hecke, Anne Loyen, Maïté Verloigne, Hidde P. van der Ploeg, Jeroen Lakerveld, Johannes Brug, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Ulf Ekelund, Alan Donnelly, Ingrid Hendriksen, Benedicte Deforche, on behalf of the DEDIPAC consortium

Abstract

Regular physical activity is associated with physical, social and mental health benefits, whilst insufficient physical activity is associated with several negative health outcomes (e.g. metabolic problems). Population monitoring of physical activity is important to gain insight into prevalence of compliance to physical activity recommendations, groups at risk and changes in physical activity patterns. This review aims to provide an overview of all existing studies that measure physical activity in youth, in cross-European studies, to describe the variation in population levels of physical activity and to describe and define challenges regarding assessment methods that are used. A systematic search was performed on six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus and OpenGrey), supplemental forward- and backward tracking was done and authors' and experts' literature databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Journal articles or reports that reported levels of physical activity in the general population of youth from cross-European studies were included. Data were reviewed, extracted and assessed by two researchers, with disagreements being resolved by a third researcher. The review protocol of this review is published under registration number CRD42014010684 in the PROSPERO database. The search resulted in 9756 identified records of which 30 articles were included in the current review. This review revealed large differences between countries in prevalence of compliance to physical activity recommendations (i.e. 60 min of daily moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA)) measured subjectively (5-47 %) and accelerometer measured minutes of MVPA (23-200 min). Overall boys and children were more active than girls and adolescents. Different measurement methods (subjective n = 12, objective n = 18) and reported outcome variables (n = 17) were used in the included articles. Different accelerometer intensity thresholds used to define MVPA resulted in substantial differences in MVPA between studies conducted in the same countries when assessed objectively. Reported levels of physical activity and prevalence of compliance to physical activity recommendations in youth showed large variation across European countries. This may reflect true variation in physical activity as well as variation in assessment methods and reported outcome variables. Standardization across Europe, of methods to assess physical activity in youth and reported outcome variables is warranted, preferably moving towards a pan-European surveillance system combining objective and self-report methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 251 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 251 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 17%
Student > Master 33 13%
Researcher 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 9%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 77 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 54 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 7%
Social Sciences 14 6%
Psychology 12 5%
Other 31 12%
Unknown 96 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 01 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,686,756
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#599
of 2,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,203
of 373,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#12
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 373,101 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 61% of its contemporaries.