↓ Skip to main content

Physical activity and nutrition education at the school environment aimed at preventing childhood obesity: evidence from systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal de Pediatria, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
386 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
Physical activity and nutrition education at the school environment aimed at preventing childhood obesity: evidence from systematic reviews
Published in
Jornal de Pediatria, October 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.jped.2015.06.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paulo Henrique Guerra, Jonas Augusto Cardoso da Silveira, Emanuel Péricles Salvador

Abstract

To organize the main findings and list the most frequent recommendations from systematic reviews of interventions developed at the school environment aimed at reducing excess weight in children and adolescents. Searches for systematic reviews available until December 31, 2014 were conducted in five electronic databases: Cochrane, PubMed, SciELO, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. Manual search for cross-references were also performed. Of the initial 2139 references, 33 systematic reviews adequately met the inclusion criteria and were included in the descriptive summary. In this set, interventions with periods of time greater than six months in duration (nine reviews), and parental involvement in the content and/or planned actions (six reviews) were identified as the most frequent and effective recommendations. Additionally, it was observed that boys respond more effectively to structural interventions, whereas girls respond to behavioral interventions. None of the included reviews was able to make inferences about the theoretical basis used in interventions as, apparently, those in charge of the interventions disregarded this component in their preparation. Although the summary identified evidence with important applications in terms of public health, there are still gaps to be filled in this field of knowledge, such as the effectiveness of different theoretical models, the identification of the best strategies in relation to gender and age of participants and, finally, the identification of moderating variables to maximize the benefits provided by the interventions.

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 386 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 378 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 77 20%
Student > Master 63 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 11%
Researcher 28 7%
Student > Postgraduate 26 7%
Other 69 18%
Unknown 82 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 61 16%
Sports and Recreations 40 10%
Social Sciences 28 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 5%
Other 60 16%
Unknown 94 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,599,159
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pediatria
#371
of 896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,324
of 290,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pediatria
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 290,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 72% of its contemporaries.