↓ Skip to main content

Adjustment for physical activity in studies of sedentary behaviour

Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 155)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
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
Adjustment for physical activity in studies of sedentary behaviour
Published in
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12982-015-0032-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Page, Geeske Peeters, Dafna Merom

Abstract

Sedentary behaviour (too much sitting, as distinct from too little exercise) has emerged as a potentially significant public health issue. Analytically, researchers have reported 'independent' associations between sedentary behaviour (SB) and a number of health outcomes by adjusting for physical activity (PA) (and other confounders), and conclude that SB is associated with the outcome even in those who are physically active. However, the logical rationale for why adjustments for PA are required is often not delineated, and as a consequence, PA has been conceptualised as a confounder, an intermediary, and an effect measure modifier-sometimes simultaneously-in studies of SB and health outcomes. This paper discusses the analytical assumptions underlying adjustment for PA in studies of SB and a given outcome, and considers the implications for associations between SB and health.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 48 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Master 5 10%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 32%
Sports and Recreations 6 12%
Psychology 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 13 26%
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 13 August 2015.
All research outputs
#3,569,316
of 25,307,332 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#40
of 155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,223
of 268,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,307,332 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 155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 268,523 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them