| Title |
Three types of scientific evidence to inform physical activity policy: results from a comparative scoping review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00038-016-0807-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alfred Rütten, Diana Schow, João Breda, Gauden Galea, Sonja Kahlmeier, Jean-Michel Oppert, Hidde van der Ploeg, Willem van Mechelen |
| Abstract |
This paper presents a typology of available evidence to inform physical activity policy. It aims to refine the distinction between three types of evidence relating to physical activity and to compare these types for the purpose of clarifying potential research gaps. A scoping review explored the extent, range and nature of three types of physical activity-related evidence available in reviews: (I) health outcomes/risk factors, (II) interventions and (III) policy-making. A six-step qualitative, iterative process with expert consultation guided data coding and analysis in EPPI Reviewer 4. 856 Type I reviews, 350 Type II reviews and 40 Type III reviews were identified. Type I reviews heavily focused on obesity issues (18 %). Reviews of a systematic nature were more prominent in the Type II (>50 %). Type III reviews tended to conflate research about policy intervention effectiveness and research about policymaking processes. The majority of reviews came from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. Although evidence gaps exist regarding evidence Types I and II, the most prominent gap regards Type III, i.e. research pertaining to physical activity policymaking. The findings presented herein will be used to inform physical activity policy development and future research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 4 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 15% |
| United States | 2 | 7% |
| Canada | 2 | 7% |
| Finland | 2 | 7% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Andorra | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 11 | 41% |
| Members of the public | 11 | 41% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 19% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 104 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 36 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 13 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 40 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 09 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,310,890
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#256
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,529
of 312,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#4
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 312,375 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.