You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Behaviour change techniques in home-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp16x686617 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neil Heron, Frank Kee, Michael Donnelly, Christopher Cardwell, Mark A Tully, Margaret E Cupples |
| Abstract |
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes offering secondary prevention for cardiovascular disease (CVD) advise healthy lifestyle behaviours, with the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) of goals and planning, feedback and monitoring, and social support recommended. More information is needed about BCT use in home-based CR to support these programmes in practice. To identify and describe the use of BCTs in home-based CR programmes. Randomised controlled trials of home-based CR between 2005 and 2015 were identified by searching MEDLINE(®), Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database. Reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Relevant data, including BCTs, were extracted from included studies. A meta-analysis studied risk factor change in home-based and comparator programmes. From 2448 studies identified, 11 of good methodological quality (10 on post-myocardial infarction, one on heart failure, 1907 patients) were included. These reported the use of 20 different BCTs. Social support (unspecified) was used in all studies and goal setting (behaviour) in 10. Of the 11 studies, 10 reported effectiveness in reducing CVD risk factors, but one study showed no improvement compared to usual care. This study differed from effective programmes in that it didn't include BCTs that had instructions on how to perform the behaviour and monitoring, or a credible source. Social support and goal setting were frequently used BCTs in home-based CR programmes, with the BCTs related to monitoring, instruction on how to perform the behaviour, and credible source being included in effective programmes. Further robust trials are needed to determine the relative value of different BCTs within CR programmes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 5 | 45% |
| Italy | 2 | 18% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 27% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 185 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 15% |
| Researcher | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 33 | 18% |
| Unknown | 44 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 51 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 22% |
| Psychology | 15 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 9 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 53 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,998,615
of 24,892,887 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,876
of 4,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,857
of 375,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#41
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,892,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 375,387 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 52% of its contemporaries.