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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evaluation of different recruitment and randomisation methods in a trial of general practitioner-led interventions to increase physical activity: a randomised controlled feasibility study with factorial design
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-15-134 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fiona C Warren, Kate Stych, Margaret Thorogood, Deborah J Sharp, Marie Murphy, Katrina M Turner, Tim A Holt, Aidan Searle, Susan Bryant, Caroline Huxley, Rod S Taylor, John L Campbell, Melvyn Hillsdon |
| Abstract |
Interventions promoting physical activity by General Practitioners (GPs) lack a strong evidence base. Recruiting participants to trials in primary care is challenging. We investigated the feasibility of (i) delivering three interventions to promote physical activity in inactive participants and (ii) different methods of participant recruitment and randomised allocation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| Belgium | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 57% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 20% |
| Unknown | 33 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 11 | 8% |
| Psychology | 9 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 39 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 April 2014.
All research outputs
#7,575,753
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#12
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,147
of 242,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#18
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one scored the same or higher as 33 of them.
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 242,307 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.