| Title |
Field experiment of a very brief worksite intervention to improve nutrition among health care workers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10865-015-9634-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher J. Armitage |
| Abstract |
Despite the potential of worksite interventions to boost productivity and save insurance costs, they tend to be costly and tested in nonrandomized trials. The aim of the present study was to test the ability of a very brief worksite intervention based on implementation intentions to improve nutrition among health care workers. Seventy-nine health care workers were randomly allocated to a control condition or to form implementation intentions using standard instructions or with a supporting tool. Fruit intake and metacognitive processing (operationalized as awareness of standards, self-monitoring and self-regulatory effort) were measured at baseline and follow-up. Participants who formed implementation intentions ate significantly more fruit and engaged in significantly more metacognitive processing at follow-up than did participants in the control condition (ds > .70). The findings support the efficacy of implementation intentions for increasing fruit intake in health care workers and preliminary support for the utility of a tool to support implementation intention formation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 75% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 16% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 6% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 26 | 34% |
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 04 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,081,919
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#693
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,071
of 264,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 264,714 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.