↓ Skip to main content

Process Evaluation of Making HEPA Policy Practice

Overview of attention for article published in Health Promotion Practice, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
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.
Title
Process Evaluation of Making HEPA Policy Practice
Published in
Health Promotion Practice, July 2016
DOI 10.1177/1524839916647331
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert G. Weaver, Justin B. Moore, Jennifer Huberty, Darcy Freedman, Brie Turner-McGrievy, Aaron Beighle, Diane Ward, Russell Pate, Ruth Saunders, Keith Brazendale, Jessica Chandler, Rahma Ajja, Becky Kyryliuk, Michael W. Beets

Abstract

This study examines the link between implementation of Strategies to Enhance Practice (STEPs) and outcomes. Twenty after-school programs (ASPs) participated in an intervention to increase children's accumulation of 30 minutes/day of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and quality of snacks served during program time. Outcomes were measured via accelerometer (MVPA) and direct observation (snacks). STEPs implementation data were collected via document review and direct observation. Based on implementation data, ASPs were divided into high/low implementers. Differences between high/low implementers' change in percentage of boys accumulating 30 minutes/day of MVPA were observed. There was no difference between high/low implementers for girls. Days fruits and/or vegetables and water were served increased in the high/low implementation groups, while desserts and sugar-sweetened beverages decreased. Effect sizes (ES) for the difference in changes between the high and low group ranged from low (ES = 0.16) to high (ES = 0.97). Higher levels of implementation led to increased MVPA for boys, whereas girls MVPA benefited from the intervention regardless of high/low implementation. ESs of the difference between high/low implementers indicate that increased implementation of STEPs increases days healthier snacks are served. Programs in the high-implementation group implemented a variety of STEPs strategies, suggesting local adoption/adaptation is key to implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Professor 7 8%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 28 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Social Sciences 12 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Sports and Recreations 6 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 38 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,467,278
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Health Promotion Practice
#1,197
of 1,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,634
of 354,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Promotion Practice
#122
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 354,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.