↓ Skip to main content

Promoting active travel to school: a systematic review (2010–2016)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 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
Promoting active travel to school: a systematic review (2010–2016)
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4648-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bo Pang, Krzysztof Kubacki, Sharyn Rundle-Thiele

Abstract

Interventions aiming to promote active school travel (AST) are being implemented globally to reverse AST decline. This systematic literature provides an update of AST interventions assessing study quality and theory use to examine progress in the field. A systematic review was conducted to identify and analyse AST interventions published between 2010 and 2016. Seven databases were searched and exclusion criteria were applied to identify 18 AST interventions. Interventions were assessed using the Active Living by Design (ALBD) Community Action (5P) Model and the Evaluation of Public Health Practice Projects (EPHPP). Methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of each intervention and their outcomes and extent of theory use were examined. Seven out of 18 studies reported theory use. The analysis of the interventions using the ALBD Community Action Model showed that Preparation and Promotion were used much more frequently than Policy and Physical projects. The methodological quality 14 out of 18 included interventions were assessed as weak according to the EPHPP framework. Noted improvements were an increase in use of objective measures. Lack of theory, weak methodological design and a lack of reliable and valid measurement were observed. Given that change is evident when theory is used and when policy changes are included extended use of the ALBD model and socio-ecological frameworks are recommended in future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 185 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 63 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 21 11%
Social Sciences 19 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 79 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,882,133
of 25,376,589 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,175
of 17,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,948
of 306,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#35
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,376,589 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 306,159 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.