↓ Skip to main content

Lexical neutrality in environmental health research: Reflections on the term walkability

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Lexical neutrality in environmental health research: Reflections on the term walkability
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4943-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha Hajna, Nancy A. Ross, Simon J. Griffin, Kaberi Dasgupta

Abstract

Neighbourhood environments have important implications for human health. In this piece, we reflect on the environments and health literature and argue that precise use of language is critical for acknowledging the complex and multifaceted influence that neighbourhood environments may have on physical activity and physical activity-related outcomes. Specifically, we argue that the term "neighbourhood walkability", commonly used in the neighbourhoods and health literature, constrains recognition of the breadth of influence that neighbourhood environments might have on a variety of physical activity behaviours. The term draws attention to a single type of physical activity and implies that a universal association exists when in fact the literature is quite mixed. To maintain neutrality in this area of research, we suggest that researchers adopt the term "neighbourhood physical activity environments" for collective measures of neighbourhood attributes that they wish to study in relation to physical activity behaviours or physical activity-related health outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 23%
Sports and Recreations 4 15%
Engineering 2 8%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 10 38%

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 07 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,097,131
of 14,509,336 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,524
of 9,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,203
of 400,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#351
of 692 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,509,336 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 400,867 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 692 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.