↓ Skip to main content

Important considerations for feasibility studies in physical activity research involving persons with multiple sclerosis: a scoping systematic review and case study

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Important considerations for feasibility studies in physical activity research involving persons with multiple sclerosis: a scoping systematic review and case study
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0145-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yvonne C. Learmonth, Robert W. Motl

Abstract

Much research has been undertaken to establish the important benefits of physical activity in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). There is disagreement regarding the strength of this research, perhaps because the majority of studies on physical activity and its benefits have not undergone initial and systematic feasibility testing. We aim to address the feasibility processes that have been examined within the context of physical activity interventions in MS. A systematic scoping review was conducted based on a literature search of five databases to identify feasibility processes described in preliminary studies of physical activity in MS. We read and extracted methodology from each study based on the following feasibility metrics: process (e.g. recruitment), resource (e.g. monetary costs), management (e.g. personnel time requirements) and scientific outcomes (e.g. clinical/participant reported outcome measures). We illustrate the use of the four feasibility metrics within a randomised controlled trial of a home-based exercise intervention in persons with MS. Twenty-five studies were identified. Resource feasibility (e.g. time and resources) and scientific outcomes feasibility (e.g. clinical outcomes) methodologies were applied and described in many studies; however, these metrics have not been systematically addressed. Metrics related to process feasibility (e.g. recruitment) and management feasibility (e.g. human and data management) are not well described within the literature. Our case study successfully enabled us to address the four feasibility metrics, and we provide new information on management feasibility (i.e. estimate data completeness and estimate data entry) and scientific outcomes feasibility (i.e. determining data collection materials appropriateness). Our review highlights the existing research and provides a case study which assesses important metrics of study feasibility. This review serves as a clarion call for feasibility trials that will substantially strengthen the foundation of research on exercise in MS.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 6 9%
Professor 4 6%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 15%
Sports and Recreations 7 11%
Psychology 7 11%
Neuroscience 6 9%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 15 23%
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 14 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,560,077
of 23,317,888 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#669
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,929
of 317,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#24
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,317,888 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 1,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 317,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.