↓ Skip to main content

Using a theoretical approach to identify factors influencing adherence to an exercise programme for adults with venous leg ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Health Psychology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
89 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.
Article details
Title
Using a theoretical approach to identify factors influencing adherence to an exercise programme for adults with venous leg ulcers
Published in
Journal of Health Psychology, July 2016
DOI 10.1177/1359105316656241
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study assessed the relationships between self-efficacy, outcome expectations, fear-avoidance beliefs and adherence to an exercise for a home-based exercise programme for adults with venous leg ulcers. Patients (n=63) were randomised to receive either an intervention or usual care group. Of those in the exercise intervention group, 59per cent adhered to the exercise protocol more than 75per cent of the time. There was a significant relationship between self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and both of these constructs were significantly related to adherence to the leg exercise programme. Adherence significantly correlated with wound healing indicating a possible pathway to healing.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 18%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 32 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Psychology 8 9%
Sports and Recreations 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 33 37%
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 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,563,539
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health Psychology
#1,133
of 2,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,123
of 357,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health Psychology
#239
of 402 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 357,089 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 402 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.