↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Innovative Building Design on Physical Activity

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Public Health Policy, February 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Effect of Innovative Building Design on Physical Activity
Published in
Journal of Public Health Policy, February 2009
DOI 10.1057/jphp.2008.55
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gayle Nicoll, Craig Zimring

Abstract

Stair climbing can be a low-cost and relatively accessible way to add everyday physical activity, but many building stairwells are inaccessible or unpleasant and elevators are far more convenient. This study explores the use of and attitude toward stairs in an innovative office building where the main elevators for able-bodied users stop only at every third floor ("skip-stop" elevators). These users are expected to walk up or down nearby stairs that have been made open and appealing ("skip-stop" stairs). The study takes advantage of a natural experiment. Some workers' offices were clustered around the skip-stop elevator and the stairs, whereas others had access to a traditional elevator core, that is, an elevator that stopped at each floor with nearby fire exit stairs. Stair use on the open skip-stop stairs and enclosed fire stairs was measured using infrared monitors and card-reader activity logs. An online survey of employees (N=299, a 17.4% response rate) gathered information on stair use and attitudes and behaviors toward physical activity; interviews with key personnel identified major implementation issues. The skip-stop stair was used 33 times more than the enclosed stair of the traditional elevator core, with 72% of survey participants reporting daily stair use. Although implementation issues related to organizational objectives, costs, security, barrier-free accessibility, and building codes exist, the skip-stop feature offers a successful strategy for increasing stair use in workplaces.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 109 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 18%
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 16%
Design 14 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Other 27 24%
Unknown 23 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 July 2013.
All research outputs
#5,822,913
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health Policy
#279
of 776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,208
of 169,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health Policy
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 169,905 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.