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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Physical Activity: A Modelling Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS Medicine, July 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000110 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Linda J. Cobiac, Theo Vos, Jan J. Barendregt |
| Abstract |
Physical inactivity is a key risk factor for chronic disease, but a growing number of people are not achieving the recommended levels of physical activity necessary for good health. Australians are no exception; despite Australia's image as a sporting nation, with success at the elite level, the majority of Australians do not get enough physical activity. There are many options for intervention, from individually tailored advice, such as counselling from a general practitioner, to population-wide approaches, such as mass media campaigns, but the most cost-effective mix of interventions is unknown. In this study we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 357 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Australia | 3 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Tunisia | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 338 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 60 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 59 | 17% |
| Researcher | 58 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 6% |
| Other | 84 | 24% |
| Unknown | 50 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 43 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 31 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 8% |
| Psychology | 15 | 4% |
| Other | 60 | 17% |
| Unknown | 85 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 06 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,980,910
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from PLOS Medicine
#2,455
of 5,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,428
of 122,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS Medicine
#11
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 77.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 122,376 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 70% of its contemporaries.