↓ Skip to main content

Acceptability of a theory-based sedentary behaviour reduction intervention for older adults (‘On Your Feet to Earn Your Seat’)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
Title
Acceptability of a theory-based sedentary behaviour reduction intervention for older adults (‘On Your Feet to Earn Your Seat’)
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1921-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raluca Matei, Ingela Thuné-Boyle, Mark Hamer, Steve Iliffe, Kenneth R. Fox, Barbara J. Jefferis, Benjamin Gardner

Abstract

Adults aged 60 years and over spend most time sedentary and are the least physically active of all age groups. This early-phase study explored acceptability of a theory-based intervention to reduce sitting time and increase activity in older adults, as part of the intervention development process. An 8-week uncontrolled trial was run among two independent samples of UK adults aged 60-75 years. Sample 1, recruited from sheltered housing on the assumption that they were sedentary and insufficiently active, participated between December 2013 and March 2014. Sample 2, recruited through community and faith centres and a newsletter, on the basis of self-reported inactivity (<150 weekly minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity) and sedentary behaviour (≥6 h mean daily sitting), participated between March and August 2014. Participants received a booklet offering 16 tips for displacing sitting with light-intensity activity and forming activity habits, and self-monitoring 'tick-sheets'. At baseline, 4-week, and 8-week follow-ups, quantitative measures were taken of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and habit. At 8 weeks, tick-sheets were collected and a semi-structured interview conducted. Acceptability was assessed for each sample separately, through attrition and adherence to tips, ANOVAs for behaviour and habit changes, and, for both samples combined, thematic analysis of interviews. In Sample 1, 12 of 16 intervention recipients completed the study (25 % attrition), mean adherence was 40 % (per-tip range: 15-61 %), and there were no clear patterns of changes in sedentary or physical activity behaviour or habit. In Sample 2, 23 of 27 intervention recipients completed (15 % attrition), and mean adherence was 58 % (per-tip range: 39-82 %). Sample 2 decreased mean sitting time and sitting habit, and increased walking, moderate activity, and activity habit. Qualitative data indicated that both samples viewed the intervention positively, found the tips easy to follow, and reported health and wellbeing gains. Low attrition, moderate adherence, and favourability in both samples, and positive changes in Sample 2, indicate the intervention was acceptable. Higher attrition, lower adherence, and no apparent behavioural impact among Sample 1 could perhaps be attributable to seasonal influences. The intervention has been refined to address emergent acceptability problems. An exploratory controlled trial is underway.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 171 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 17%
Student > Master 28 16%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 46 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 13%
Psychology 22 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 12%
Sports and Recreations 21 12%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 52 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 11 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,357,060
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,839
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,338
of 265,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#59
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 265,875 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.