↓ 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 Family Practice, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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 Family Practice, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 21%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Psychology 11 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Computer Science 6 7%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 22 24%

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
#7,762,773
of 12,373,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#883
of 1,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,806
of 266,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,620 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,233 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. 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 266,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.