↓ 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 (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 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

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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 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 219 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 15%
Researcher 33 15%
Student > Bachelor 30 13%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 43 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 15%
Psychology 26 12%
Social Sciences 14 6%
Sports and Recreations 12 5%
Other 19 8%
Unknown 52 23%

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
#1,228,584
of 21,689,971 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,895
of 12,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,494
of 186,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,689,971 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 12,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 186,693 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 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.