↓ Skip to main content

Field experiment of a very brief worksite intervention to improve nutrition among health care workers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Behavioral Medicine, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Field experiment of a very brief worksite intervention to improve nutrition among health care workers
Published in
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, March 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10865-015-9634-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher J. Armitage

Abstract

Despite the potential of worksite interventions to boost productivity and save insurance costs, they tend to be costly and tested in nonrandomized trials. The aim of the present study was to test the ability of a very brief worksite intervention based on implementation intentions to improve nutrition among health care workers. Seventy-nine health care workers were randomly allocated to a control condition or to form implementation intentions using standard instructions or with a supporting tool. Fruit intake and metacognitive processing (operationalized as awareness of standards, self-monitoring and self-regulatory effort) were measured at baseline and follow-up. Participants who formed implementation intentions ate significantly more fruit and engaged in significantly more metacognitive processing at follow-up than did participants in the control condition (ds > .70). The findings support the efficacy of implementation intentions for increasing fruit intake in health care workers and preliminary support for the utility of a tool to support implementation intention formation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Professor 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 22 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 26 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,778,812
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#791
of 1,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,631
of 280,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 280,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.