↓ Skip to main content

Physical activity promotion in Latin American populations: a systematic review on issues of internal and external validity

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Physical activity promotion in Latin American populations: a systematic review on issues of internal and external validity
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1479-5868-11-77
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karla I Galaviz, Samantha M Harden, Erin Smith, Kacie CA Blackman, Leanna M Berrey, Scherezade K Mama, Fabio A Almeida, Rebecca E Lee, Paul A Estabrooks

Abstract

The purpose of this review was to determine the degree to which physical activity interventions for Latin American populations reported on internal and external validity factors using the RE-AIM framework (reach & representativeness, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance). We systematically identified English (PubMed; EbscoHost) and Spanish (SCIELO; Biblioteca Virtual en Salud) language studies published between 2001 and 2012 that tested physical activity, exercise, or fitness promotion interventions in Latin American populations. Cross-sectional/descriptive studies, conducted in Brazil or Spain, published in Portuguese, not including a physical activity/fitness/exercise outcome, and with one time point assessment were excluded. We reviewed 192 abstracts and identified 46 studies that met the eligibility criteria (34 in English, 12 in Spanish). A validated 21-item RE-AIM abstraction tool was used to determine the quality of reporting across studies (0-7 = low, 8-14 = moderate, and 15-21 = high). The number of indicators reported ranged from 3-14 (mean = 8.1 ± 2.6), with the majority of studies falling in the moderate quality reporting category. English and Spanish language articles did not differ on the number of indicators reported (8.1 vs. 8.3, respectively). However, Spanish articles reported more across reach indicators (62% vs. 43% of indicators), while English articles reported more across effectiveness indicators (69% vs 62%). Across RE-AIM dimensions, indicators for reach (48%), efficacy/effectiveness (67%), and implementation (41%) were reported more often than indicators of adoption (25%) and maintenance (10%). Few studies reported on the representativeness of participants, staff that delivered interventions, or the settings where interventions were adopted. Only 13% of the studies reported on quality of life and/or potential negative outcomes, 20% reported on intervention fidelity, and 11% on cost of implementation. Outcomes measured after six months of intervention, information on continued delivery and institutionalization of interventions, were also seldom reported. Regardless of language of publication, physical activity intervention research for Latin Americans should increase attention to and measurement of external validity and cost factors that are critical in the decision making process in practice settings and can increase the likelihood of translation into community or clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 150 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 22%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 32 21%
Unknown 27 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 22%
Social Sciences 21 14%
Sports and Recreations 18 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Psychology 12 8%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 37 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 October 2016.
All research outputs
#5,612,714
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,354
of 1,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,347
of 229,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#16
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 229,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.