↓ Skip to main content

Equity in Physical Activity: A Misguided Goal

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Equity in Physical Activity: A Misguided Goal
Published in
Sports Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40279-018-0959-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

James L. Nuzzo

Abstract

Rates of participation in physical activity are often not the same between groups in a given demographic category. These differences have been termed 'inequities,' and major health organizations are advocating large-scale initiatives to create 'equity' in physical activity. The aim of this paper is to explain why equity in physical activity is a misguided goal. Equity is a misguided goal because it ignores absolute rates of physical activity (i.e., it is a metric of how one group compares with another), and because it is an automated goal that ignores sizes of 'gaps' between groups. Moreover, equity initiatives incorrectly assume that groups with relatively high physical activity rates are always at lower health risk; that non-targeted groups will remain static in their levels of physical activity; that individuals are part of only one demographic category; that complete equity can be achieved; that the causal relationship between equity initiatives and their desired outcome can be known; and that differences in physical activity rates between groups are due to differences in 'opportunity.' Due to these issues, health organizations should abandon the goal of equity. Instead, they should aim to increase physical activity in groups that are most sedentary and/or at greatest health risk to a level that is as high as is feasible and possible, irrespective of how that new level compares with other groups. This goal is objective and not based on the misguided premises that underpin the current equity narrative.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 13 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 7 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 15%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 16 48%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,308,914
of 25,303,733 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,492
of 2,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,476
of 333,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#22
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,303,733 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 2,902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 333,764 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 86% 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 is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.