↓ Skip to main content

What do we know about brief interventions for physical activity that could be delivered in primary care consultations? A systematic review of reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Preventive Medicine, June 2017
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
35 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
What do we know about brief interventions for physical activity that could be delivered in primary care consultations? A systematic review of reviews
Published in
Preventive Medicine, June 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.02.017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Lamming, Sally Pears, Dan Mason, Katie Morton, Maaike Bijker, Stephen Sutton, Wendy Hardeman

Abstract

This systematic review of reviews aims to investigate how brief interventions (BIs) are defined, whether they increase physical activity, which factors influence their effectiveness, who they are effective for, and whether they are feasible and acceptable. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, DARE, HTA database, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index-Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network from their inception until May 2015 to identify systematic reviews of the effectiveness of BIs aimed at promoting physical activity in adults, reporting a physical activity outcome and at least one BI that could be delivered in a primary care setting. A narrative synthesis was conducted. We identified three specific BI reviews and thirteen general reviews of physical activity interventions that met the inclusion criteria. The BI reviews reported varying definitions of BIs, only one of which specified a maximum duration of 30min. BIs can increase self-reported physical activity in the short term, but there is insufficient evidence about their long-term impact, their impact on objectively measured physical activity, and about the factors that influence their effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability. Current definitions include BIs that are too long for primary care consultations. Practitioners, commissioners and policy makers should be aware of this when interpreting evidence about BIs, and future research should develop and evaluate very brief interventions (of 5min or less) that could be delivered in a primary care consultation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 20 25%
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 21 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 19 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 18%
Sports and Recreations 11 14%
Psychology 8 10%
Other 12 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#507,084
of 13,441,462 outputs
Outputs from Preventive Medicine
#257
of 3,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,866
of 258,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Preventive Medicine
#7
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,441,462 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 258,605 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.