| Title |
The GLAMA (Girls! Lead! Achieve! Mentor! Activate!) physical activity and peer leadership intervention pilot project: A process evaluation using the RE-AIM framework
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-12-55 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kate A Jenkinson, Geraldine Naughton, Amanda C Benson |
| Abstract |
Implementing new initiatives and physical activity interventions in schools represents a myriad of challenges that if overcome can potentially facilitate a range of behavioural changes. The aim of this paper is to describe the process evaluation of specific design constructs used in the GLAMA (Girls! Lead! Achieve! Mentor! Activate!) peer leadership and physical activity pilot project. Conducted in a state secondary school in Australia, the intervention was designed to provide students with opportunities to develop leadership skills, school and social connectedness in addition to a range of physical activity experiences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 200 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 38 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 17% |
| Researcher | 26 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 47 | 23% |
| Unknown | 35 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 42 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 14% |
| Psychology | 21 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 20 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 9% |
| Other | 23 | 11% |
| Unknown | 50 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 November 2019.
All research outputs
#14,142,336
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,255
of 14,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,763
of 245,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#125
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 245,768 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.