↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Face‐to‐face versus remote and web 2.0 interventions for promoting physical activity

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
266 Mendeley
Title
Face‐to‐face versus remote and web 2.0 interventions for promoting physical activity
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010393.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin Richards, Margaret Thorogood, Melvyn Hillsdon, Charles Foster

Abstract

Face-to-face interventions for promoting physical activity (PA) are continuing to be popular as remote and web 2.0 approaches rapidly emerge, but we are unsure which approach is more effective at achieving long term sustained change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 260 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 14%
Researcher 35 13%
Student > Bachelor 33 12%
Other 12 5%
Other 32 12%
Unknown 66 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 13%
Psychology 29 11%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Sports and Recreations 11 4%
Other 22 8%
Unknown 76 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,605,031
of 26,150,873 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,267
of 13,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,067
of 220,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,150,873 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 13,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 220,384 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 222 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 72% of its contemporaries.