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 |
Barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions to support healthy food choices: a mixed methods systematic review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0752-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Kerins, Jennifer McSharry, Catherine Hayes, Ivan J. Perry, Fiona Geaney, Colette Kelly |
| Abstract |
Menu labelling is continuing to gather public and legislative support as one of the potential environmental strategies for addressing the obesity pandemic. However, issues relating to implementation have been reported in countries where menu labelling has been introduced on a voluntary or mandatory basis. The aim of this mixed methods systematic review is to synthesise the empirical evidence on the barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions to support healthy food choices. This review will use the 'best fit' framework synthesis approach to synthesise qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods evidence. Peer-reviewed publications will be accessed through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. Grey literature will be accessed through Google Scholar, OpenGrey, RIAN, EThOS, ProQuest, WorldCat, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, and public health organisation websites. Screening reference lists, citation chaining and contacting authors of all included studies will be undertaken. There will be no restriction on menu labelling scheme or format, publication year or language; however, only primary research studies relevant to supply-side stakeholders will be eligible for inclusion. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. At least two independent reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal; if consensus is required, another independent reviewer will be consulted. A combination of deductive coding, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as the a priori framework, and inductive analysis, using secondary thematic analysis, will be used. The overall process will assist in the construction of a new evidence-based conceptual model regarding the implementation of menu labelling interventions. The new model will be assessed for bias and a sensitivity analysis performed. Given the growing consensus that a systemic, sustained portfolio of obesity prevention strategies, delivered at scale, is needed to address the obesity epidemic, greater understanding of the practical issues relating to implementation of such strategies is required. Findings from this review will be used to develop a set of best-practice guidelines to enhance the adoption, implementation and sustainability of menu labelling interventions across countries worldwide. PROSPERO CRD42017083306. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 20 | 59% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Singapore | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 21% |
| Scientists | 5 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 141 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 11% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 22 | 16% |
| Unknown | 50 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 9% |
| Psychology | 8 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 23 | 16% |
| Unknown | 49 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 05 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,214,437
of 24,242,692 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#172
of 2,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,787
of 332,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#4
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,242,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 332,678 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 93% of its contemporaries.