↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for Get Moving: a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of three minimal contact interventions to promote fitness and physical activity in working adults

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 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
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Protocol for Get Moving: a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of three minimal contact interventions to promote fitness and physical activity in working adults
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1654-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew JM Cooper, Katie Dearnley, Kate M Williams, Stephen J Sharp, Esther MF van Sluijs, Soren Brage, Stephen Sutton, Simon J Griffin

Abstract

Web-based interventions for physical activity offer several advantages over face-to-face, print-and telephone-based interventions and are scalable and potentially cost-effective. Recent reviews of web-based interventions in adults show that they have positive but small effects on physical activity but identify a number of limitations including a reliance on self-report measures of outcome. This trial used an objective measure of physical activity to assess the effectiveness of three minimal contact interventions: 1) A multi-component web-based intervention incorporating objective monitoring and graphical feedback of physical activity; 2) A version of the first intervention that consisted only of objective monitoring plus web-based graphical feedback; and 3) Self-monitoring of physical activity using a paper diary. Get Moving is an individually randomised controlled trial with allocation of 488 participants to one of three interventions or to a no-intervention control group. Participants are physically inactive working adults aged 18-65 years. They attended a baseline assessment session at which anthropometric, biological and questionnaire measures were taken and they completed a treadmill exercise test. They then wore a combined movement and heart rate monitor for six days and nights before being randomised to one of the four trial arms. The baseline measures were repeated at the follow-up assessment which took place approximately 12 weeks post-randomisation, conducted by staff blind to group allocation. Participants wore the movement and heart rate monitor for six days and nights before this. The co-primary outcomes are: physical activity energy expenditure measured using individually calibrated combined heart-rate and movement data; and cardiorespiratory fitness measured using a sub-maximal treadmill exercise test. Strengths of the trial include the use of an objective measure of physical activity, a measure of cardiorespiratory fitness, relatively large sample size and the use of robust methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding to outcome assessment. Get Moving will contribute to the evidence base on minimal contact interventions for increasing physical activity. The interventions could be implemented in other settings such as primary care. ISRCTN31844443 . Registered 18 June 2010.

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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 107 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 19 17%
Researcher 18 16%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Other 34 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 23%
Sports and Recreations 24 22%
Unspecified 18 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Psychology 11 10%
Other 20 18%

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 31 March 2015.
All research outputs
#2,622,180
of 4,941,691 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,898
of 5,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,903
of 146,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#170
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,941,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 146,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.