↓ Skip to main content

Technology Interventions to Curb Obesity: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Technology Interventions to Curb Obesity: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature
Published in
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, March 2012
DOI 10.1007/s12170-012-0222-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J. Coons, Andrew DeMott, Joanna Buscemi, Jennifer M. Duncan, Christine A. Pellegrini, Jeremy Steglitz, Alexander Pictor, Bonnie Spring

Abstract

Obesity is a public health crisis that has reached epidemic proportions. Although intensive behavioral interventions can produce clinically significant weight loss, their cost to implement, coupled with resource limitations, pose significant barriers to scalability. To overcome these challenges, researchers have made attempts to shift intervention content to the Internet and other mobile devices. This article systematically reviews the recent literature examining technology-supported interventions for weight loss and maintenance among overweight and obese adults. Thirteen studies were identified that satisfied our inclusion criteria (12 weight loss trials, 1 weight maintenance trial). Our findings suggest that technology interventions may be efficacious at producing weight loss. However, several studies are limited by methodologic shortcomings. There are insufficient data to evaluate their efficacy for weight maintenance. Further research is needed that employs state-of-the-art methodology, with careful attention being paid to adherence and fidelity to intervention protocols.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 96 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 6 6%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 22 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 23%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Computer Science 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 30 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 August 2014.
All research outputs
#14,154,868
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports
#118
of 219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,535
of 156,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 156,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them