↓ Skip to main content

Translating active living research into policy and practice: One important pathway to chronic disease prevention

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Public Health Policy, January 2015
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
127 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 Mendeley
Title
Translating active living research into policy and practice: One important pathway to chronic disease prevention
Published in
Journal of Public Health Policy, January 2015
DOI 10.1057/jphp.2014.53
Pubmed ID
Authors

Billie Giles-Corti, James F Sallis, Takemi Sugiyama, Lawrence D Frank, Melanie Lowe, Neville Owen

Abstract

Global concerns about rising levels of chronic disease make timely translation of research into policy and practice a priority. There is a need to tackle common risk factors: tobacco use, unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, and harmful alcohol use. Using evidence to inform policy and practice is challenging, often hampered by a poor fit between academic research and the needs of policymakers and practitioners - notably for active living researchers whose objective is to increase population physical activity by changing the ways cities are designed and built. We propose 10 strategies that may facilitate translation of research into health-enhancing urban planning policy. Strategies include interdisciplinary research teams of policymakers and practitioners; undertaking explicitly policy-relevant research; adopting appropriate study designs and methodologies (evaluation of policy initiatives as 'natural experiments'); and adopting dissemination strategies that include knowledge brokers, advocates, and lobbyists. Conducting more policy-relevant research will require training for researchers as well as different rewards in academia.Journal of Public Health Policy advance online publication, 22 January 2015; doi:10.1057/jphp.2014.53.

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 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 214 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 17%
Student > Master 33 15%
Researcher 31 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 7%
Other 39 17%
Unknown 44 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 44 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Environmental Science 10 4%
Engineering 10 4%
Other 40 18%
Unknown 64 29%
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 12 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,841,831
of 22,782,096 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health Policy
#132
of 780 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,711
of 351,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health Policy
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,782,096 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 780 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 done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 351,850 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.