| Title |
Face‐to‐face interventions for promoting physical activity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010392.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Justin Richards, Melvyn Hillsdon, Margaret Thorogood, Charles Foster |
| Abstract |
Face-to-face interventions for promoting physical activity (PA) are continuing to be popular but their ability to achieve long term changes are unknown. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 32% |
| France | 2 | 11% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 53% |
| Scientists | 6 | 32% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 16% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 411 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 402 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 69 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 57 | 14% |
| Researcher | 49 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 44 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 5% |
| Other | 68 | 17% |
| Unknown | 104 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 112 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 48 | 12% |
| Psychology | 37 | 9% |
| Sports and Recreations | 27 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 23 | 6% |
| Other | 48 | 12% |
| Unknown | 116 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 15 January 2015.
All research outputs
#2,027,327
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,288
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,803
of 219,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#87
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 219,662 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 224 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.