↓ Skip to main content

Lifestyle Advice Combined with Personalized Estimates of Genetic or Phenotypic Risk of Type 2 Diabetes, and Objectively Measured Physical Activity: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS Medicine, November 2016
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
23 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
200 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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
Lifestyle Advice Combined with Personalized Estimates of Genetic or Phenotypic Risk of Type 2 Diabetes, and Objectively Measured Physical Activity: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
PLOS Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002185
Pubmed ID
Authors

Job G. Godino, Esther M. F. van Sluijs, Theresa M. Marteau, Stephen Sutton, Stephen J. Sharp, Simon J. Griffin

Abstract

Information about genetic and phenotypic risk of type 2 diabetes is now widely available and is being incorporated into disease prevention programs. Whether such information motivates behavior change or has adverse effects is uncertain. We examined the effect of communicating an estimate of genetic or phenotypic risk of type 2 diabetes in a parallel group, open, randomized controlled trial. We recruited 569 healthy middle-aged adults from the Fenland Study, an ongoing population-based, observational study in the east of England (Cambridgeshire, UK). We used a computer-generated random list to assign participants in blocks of six to receive either standard lifestyle advice alone (control group, n = 190) or in combination with a genetic (n = 189) or a phenotypic (n = 190) risk estimate for type 2 diabetes (intervention groups). After 8 wk, we measured the primary outcome, objectively measured physical activity (kJ/kg/day), and also measured several secondary outcomes (including self-reported diet, self-reported weight, worry, anxiety, and perceived risk). The study was powered to detect a between-group difference of 4.1 kJ/kg/d at follow-up. 557 (98%) participants completed the trial. There were no significant intervention effects on physical activity (difference in adjusted mean change from baseline: genetic risk group versus control group 0.85 kJ/kg/d (95% CI -2.07 to 3.77, p = 0.57); phenotypic risk group versus control group 1.32 (95% CI -1.61 to 4.25, p = 0.38); and genetic risk group versus phenotypic risk group -0.47 (95% CI -3.40 to 2.46, p = 0.75). No significant differences in self-reported diet, self-reported weight, worry, and anxiety were observed between trial groups. Estimates of perceived risk were significantly more accurate among those who received risk information than among those who did not. Key limitations include the recruitment of a sample that may not be representative of the UK population, use of self-reported secondary outcome measures, and a short follow-up period. In this study, we did not observe short-term changes in behavior associated with the communication of an estimate of genetic or phenotypic risk of type 2 diabetes. We also did not observe changes in worry or anxiety in the study population. Additional research is needed to investigate the conditions under which risk information might enhance preventive strategies. (Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09650496; Date applied: April 4, 2011; Date assigned: June 10, 2011). The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN09650496.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 200 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 127 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Other 12 9%
Other 30 23%
Unknown 24 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 12%
Psychology 13 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 30 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 329. 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 06 February 2020.
All research outputs
#48,345
of 16,038,590 outputs
Outputs from PLOS Medicine
#130
of 3,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,188
of 391,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS Medicine
#5
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,038,590 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 65.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 391,924 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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 92% of its contemporaries.