↓ Skip to main content

What do general practitioners think about an online self-regulation programme for health promotion? Focus group interviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
What do general practitioners think about an online self-regulation programme for health promotion? Focus group interviews
Published in
BMC Primary Care, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12875-014-0214-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jolien Plaete, Geert Crombez, Ann DeSmet, Myriam Deveugele, Maïté Verloigne, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij

Abstract

BackgroundChronic diseases may be prevented through programmes that promote physical activity and healthy nutrition. Computer-tailoring programmes are effective in changing behaviour in the short- and long-term. An important issue is the implementation of these programmes in general practice. However, there are several barriers that hinder the adoption of eHealth programmes in general practice. This study explored the feasibility of an eHealth programme that was designed, using self-regulation principles.MethodsSeven focus group interviews (a total of 62 GPs) were organized to explore GPs¿ opinions about the feasibility of the eHealth programme for prevention in general practice. At the beginning of each focus group, GPs were informed about the principles of the self-regulation programme `My Plan¿. Open-ended questions were used to assess the opinion of GPs about the content and the use of the programme. The focus groups discussions were audio-taped, transcribed and thematically analysed via NVivo software.ResultsThe majority of the GPs was positive about the use of self-regulation strategies and about the use of computer-tailored programmes in general practice. There were contradictory results about the delivery mode of the programme. GPs also indicated that the programme might be less suited for patients with a low educational level or for old patients.ConclusionsOverall, GPs are positive about the adoption of self-regulation techniques for health promotion in their practice. However, they raised doubts about the adoption in general practice. This barrier may be addressed (1) by offering various ways to deliver the programme, and (2) by allowing flexibility to match different work flow systems. GPs also believed that the acceptability and usability of the programmes was low for patients who are old or with low education. The issues raised by GPs will need to be taken into account when developing and implementing an eHealth programme in general practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 36 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Psychology 14 11%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Computer Science 6 5%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 41 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 January 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,714
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,104
of 359,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#28
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 359,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.