↓ Skip to main content

Valuing Individuals’ Preferences and Health Choices of Physical Exercise

Overview of attention for article published in Pain and Therapy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Valuing Individuals’ Preferences and Health Choices of Physical Exercise
Published in
Pain and Therapy, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40122-017-0067-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanuel Aboagye

Abstract

The efficacy of physical exercise for the prevention and treatment of non-specific low back pain (LBP) is well documented, but little is known about how individuals value specific components of physical exercise, such as the type and design or the intensity and frequency of exercise. Other factors that influence individual differences in health choices and adherence are associated with individuals' attitudes toward and likelihood of performing recommended exercise regimens. Current evidence shows that efficacy is similar among exercise interventions, but their features vary widely. Thus it may be difficult for clinicians to discriminate between available options in clinical practice. Considering the many challenges in determining the form of exercise best suited to the individual patient, this commentary discusses some of the practical methods that could be used to elicit individual preference for recommended health care interventions. Such methods have the advantage of providing more information for health care decision making, particularly with regard to exercise interventions for LBP. This commentary also advocates for the use of patient preference in health care decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Unspecified 4 13%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 12 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Unspecified 4 13%
Psychology 2 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 March 2017.
All research outputs
#12,834,829
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Pain and Therapy
#156
of 424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,840
of 310,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pain and Therapy
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 310,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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.