| Title |
Mobile health: a synopsis and comment on “Increasing physical activity with mobile devices: a meta-analysis”
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Translational Behavioral Medicine, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13142-014-0254-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Winter Johnston, Sara Hoffman, Louise Thornton |
| Abstract |
We offer a synopsis and commentary on J. Fanning and colleagues' article "Increasing Physical Activity with Mobile Devices: A Meta-Analysis" published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research. Although regular physical activity has a range of benefits, very few adults in the USA meet recommended guidelines for daily physical activity. The meta-analysis of Fanning et al. (2012) aimed to synthesize the results of research using mobile devices to increase physical activity. Their review identified 11 studies that used mobile technologies, including short message service (SMS), apps, or personal digital assistant (PDA) to improve physical activity behaviors among participants. Fanning et al. conclude that while literature in this area is limited to date, there is initial support for the efficacy of mobile-based interventions for improving physical activity. Included studies varied greatly, and the majority used only SMS to influence physical behaviors, meaning generalization of results to other forms of mobile technologies may be premature. This review does, however, provide a foundation for understanding how mobile-based interventions may be used efficaciously for the development of future interventions to improve health behaviors. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 14% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 18% |
| Psychology | 15 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 11% |
| Sports and Recreations | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 18% |
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 01 April 2014.
All research outputs
#20,140,268
of 25,621,213 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#893
of 1,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,459
of 322,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,621,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,092 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 322,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.