↓ Skip to main content

The majority are not performing home-exercises correctly two weeks after their initial instruction—an assessor-blinded study

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
89 X users
facebook
11 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
The majority are not performing home-exercises correctly two weeks after their initial instruction—an assessor-blinded study
Published in
PeerJ, July 2015
DOI 10.7717/peerj.1102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathilde Faber, Malene H. Andersen, Claus Sevel, Kristian Thorborg, Thomas Bandholm, Michael Rathleff

Abstract

Introduction. Time-under-tension (TUT) reflects time under load during strength training and is a proxy of the total exercise dose during strength training. The purpose of this study was to investigate if young participants are able to reproduce TUT and exercise form after two weeks of unsupervised exercises. Material and Methods. The study was an assessor-blinded intervention study with 29 participants. After an initial instruction, all participants were instructed to perform two weeks of home-based unsupervised shoulder abduction exercises three times per week with an elastic exercise band. The participants were instructed in performing an exercise with a predefined TUT (3 s concentric; 2 s isometric; 3 s eccentric; 2 s break) corresponding to a total of 240 s of TUT during three sets of 10 repetitions. After completing two weeks of unsupervised home exercises, they returned for a follow-up assessment of TUT and exercise form while performing the shoulder abduction exercise. A stretch sensor attached to the elastic band was used to measure TUT at baseline and follow-up. A physiotherapist used a pre-defined clinical observation protocol to determine if participants used the correct exercise form. Results. Fourteen of the 29 participants trained with the instructed TUT at follow-up (predefined target: 240 s ±8%). Thirteen of the 29 participants performed the shoulder abduction exercise with a correct exercise form. Seven of the 29 participants trained with the instructed TUT and exercise form at follow-up. Conclusion. The majority of participants did not use the instructed TUT and exercise form at follow-up after two weeks of unsupervised exercises. These findings emphasize the importance of clear and specific home exercise instructions if participants are to follow the given exercise prescription regarding TUT and exercise form as too many or too few exercise stimuli in relation to the initially prescribed amount of exercise most likely will provide a misinterpretation of the actual effect of any given specific home exercise intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 84 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 21 24%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 23%
Sports and Recreations 15 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Engineering 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 22 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 December 2023.
All research outputs
#625,197
of 25,048,615 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#640
of 14,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,145
of 269,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#15
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,048,615 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,966 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 269,546 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.