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 |
Desk-based workers’ perspectives on using sit-stand workstations: a qualitative analysis of the Stand@Work study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-14-752 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Josephine Y Chau, Michelle Daley, Anu Srinivasan, Scott Dunn, Adrian E Bauman, Hidde P van der Ploeg |
| Abstract |
Prolonged sitting time has been identified as a health risk factor. Sit-stand workstations allow desk workers to alternate between sitting and standing throughout the working day, but not much is known about their acceptability and feasibility. Hence, the aim of this study was to qualitatively evaluate the acceptability, feasibility and perceptions of using sit-stand workstations in a group of desk-based office workers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 | 10 | 28% |
| Canada | 5 | 14% |
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Australia | 2 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Finland | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 50% |
| Scientists | 11 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 19% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 213 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 40 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 16% |
| Researcher | 29 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 31 | 14% |
| Unknown | 43 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 28 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 12% |
| Engineering | 17 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 43 | 20% |
| Unknown | 55 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 20 October 2015.
All research outputs
#752,489
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#770
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,566
of 231,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#16
of 291 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. 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 231,276 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 291 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 94% of its contemporaries.