↓ Skip to main content

Clinical use of objective measures of physical activity

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Sports Medicine, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Clinical use of objective measures of physical activity
Published in
British Journal of Sports Medicine, December 2013
DOI 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093173
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stewart G Trost, Margaret O'Neil

Abstract

With measurement of physical activity becoming more common in clinical practice, it is imperative that healthcare professionals become more knowledgeable about the different methods available to objectively measure physical activity behaviour. Objective measures do not rely on information provided by the patient, but instead measure and record the biomechanical or physiological consequences of performing physical activity, often in real time. As such, objective measures are not subject to the reporting bias or recall problems associated with self-report methods. The purpose of this article was to provide an overview of the different methods used to objectively measure physical activity in clinical practice. The review was delimited to heart rate monitoring, accelerometers and pedometers since their small size, low participant burden and relatively low cost make these objective measures appropriate for use in clinical practice settings. For each measure, strengths and weakness were discussed; and whenever possible, literature-based examples of implementation were provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 165 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 14%
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 35 20%
Unknown 34 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 23%
Sports and Recreations 31 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 53 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 02 September 2015.
All research outputs
#2,982,561
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#3,258
of 6,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,826
of 308,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#59
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 308,551 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.