↓ Skip to main content

The associations between the response efficacy and objective and subjective change in physical activity and diet in the Information and Risk Modification trial

Overview of attention for article published in Public Health (Elsevier), December 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
The associations between the response efficacy and objective and subjective change in physical activity and diet in the Information and Risk Modification trial
Published in
Public Health (Elsevier), December 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.puhe.2018.09.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Wou, B. Silarova, S. Griffin, J.A. Usher-Smith

Abstract

Many health promotion campaigns and interventions focussing on improving health-related behaviours have been based on targeting response efficacy. This is based on the assumption that response efficacy is an important modifiable determinant of behaviour change. This study aimed to quantify the association between response efficacy and objective and subjective measures of physical activity and diet. Prospective cohort analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial. A total of 953 participants were assessed for response efficacy at baseline and 12 weeks following randomisation to interventions to increase physical activity and improve diet. Subjective measures were collected via a self-report questionnaire that included two questions used to derive the Cambridge Index of physical activity and questions about daily or weekly fruit and vegetable, whole grain, meat and fish intake, based on the dietary guidelines to lower cardiovascular risk. Objective measures were quantified using accelerometers and plasma carotenoids. The mean change in response efficacy for physical activity was +0.5 (standard deviation [SD] 2.0) and for diet was +0.5 (SD 2.1).There were no clinically or statistically significant associations between baseline or change in response efficacy and objective and subjective measures of physical activity or objective measures of diet. There was a small statistically significant association between baseline response efficacy and change in self-reported wholegrain consumption, but this is unlikely to be clinically significant. Response efficacy is not a fundamental determinant of diet and physical activity and should not be the main focus of interventions targeting these behaviours.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 18%
Student > Master 2 12%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 6 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Psychology 2 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 12%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 4 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 10 December 2018.
All research outputs
#9,974,311
of 13,044,081 outputs
Outputs from Public Health (Elsevier)
#1,451
of 1,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,339
of 304,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health (Elsevier)
#44
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,044,081 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 304,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.