↓ Skip to main content

Altering micro-environments to change population health behaviour: towards an evidence base for choice architecture interventions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2013
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
58 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
185 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
485 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Altering micro-environments to change population health behaviour: towards an evidence base for choice architecture interventions
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1218
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gareth J Hollands, Ian Shemilt, Theresa M Marteau, Susan A Jebb, Michael P Kelly, Ryota Nakamura, Marc Suhrcke, David Ogilvie

Abstract

The idea that behaviour can be influenced at population level by altering the environments within which people make choices (choice architecture) has gained traction in policy circles. However, empirical evidence to support this idea is limited, especially its application to changing health behaviour. We propose an evidence-based definition and typology of choice architecture interventions that have been implemented within small-scale micro-environments and evaluated for their effects on four key sets of health behaviours: diet, physical activity, alcohol and tobacco use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 485 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Belgium 3 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 472 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 120 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 77 16%
Researcher 76 16%
Student > Bachelor 58 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 5%
Other 80 16%
Unknown 48 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 95 20%
Social Sciences 68 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 52 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 34 7%
Other 124 26%
Unknown 73 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#549,967
of 17,829,175 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#514
of 12,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,071
of 275,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#34
of 1,088 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,829,175 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 12,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 275,631 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,088 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 96% of its contemporaries.