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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Physical Activity for the Chronically Ill and Disabled
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2165/00007256-200030030-00005 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Larry Durstine, Patricia Painter, Barry A. Franklin, Don Morgan, Kenneth H. Pitetti, Scott O. Roberts |
| Abstract |
Exercise prescription principles for persons without chronic disease and/or disability are based on well developed scientific information. While there are varied objectives for being physically active, including enhancing physical fitness, promoting health by reducing the risk for chronic disease and ensuring safety during exercise participation, the essence of the exercise prescription is based on individual interests, health needs and clinical status, and therefore the aforementioned goals do not always carry equal weight. In the same manner, the principles of exercise prescription for persons with chronic disease and/or disability should place more emphasis on the patient's clinical status and, as a result, the exercise mode, intensity, frequency and duration are usually modified according to their clinical condition. Presently, these exercise prescription principles have been scientifically defined for clients with coronary heart disease. However, other diseases and/or disabilities have been studied less (e.g. renal failure, cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome, cerebral palsy). This article reviews these issues with specific reference to persons with chronic diseases and disabilities. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 331 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 318 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 59 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 49 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 13% |
| Researcher | 32 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 5% |
| Other | 57 | 17% |
| Unknown | 76 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 62 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 33 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 4% |
| Other | 61 | 18% |
| Unknown | 100 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,799,086
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,813
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,141
of 189,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#297
of 761 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 189,944 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 761 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.