| 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 |
Richards J, Thorogood M, Hillsdon M, Foster C, Richards, Justin, Thorogood, Margaret, Hillsdon, Melvyn, Foster, Charles, Richards J; Thorogood M; Hillsdon M; Foster C, Justin Richards, Margaret Thorogood, Melvyn Hillsdon, Charles Foster, Asha Kaur, Kremlin K Wickramasinghe, Thamindu Wedatilake |
| 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. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 23% |
| Australia | 2 | 15% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 62% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 245 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 49 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 15% |
| Researcher | 34 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 12% |
| Other | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 12% |
| Unknown | 57 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 75 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 14% |
| Psychology | 29 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 8% |
| Unknown | 67 | 27% |
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 01 August 2021.
All research outputs
#1,310,060
of 22,725,280 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,018
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,842
of 205,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,725,280 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. 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 205,113 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 215 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.