↓ Skip to main content

Exploring equity in primary-care-based physical activity interventions using PROGRESS-Plus: a systematic review and evidence synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Exploring equity in primary-care-based physical activity interventions using PROGRESS-Plus: a systematic review and evidence synthesis
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12966-016-0384-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

S Attwood, E van Sluijs, S Sutton

Abstract

Little is known about equity effects in primary care based physical activity interventions. This review explored whether differences in intervention effects are evident across indicators of social disadvantage, specified under the acronym PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, social capital, socioeconomic status, plus age, disability and sexual orientation). Six bibliographic databases were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical activity interventions conducted in primary care. Harvest plots were used to synthesize findings from RCTs reporting subgroup or interaction analyses examining differences in intervention effects across levels of at least one PROGRESS-Plus factor. The search yielded 9052 articles, from which 173 eligible RCTs were identified. Despite PROGRESS-Plus factors being commonly measured (N = 171 RCTs), differential effect analyses were infrequently reported (N = 24 RCTs). Where reported, results of equity analyses suggest no differences in effect across levels or categories of place of residence (N = 1RCT), race (N = 4 RCTs), education (N = 3 RCTs), socioeconomic status (N = 3 RCTs), age (N = 16 RCTs) or disability (N = 2 RCTs). Mixed findings were observed for gender (N = 22 RCTs), with some interventions showing greater effect in men than women and others vice versa. Three RCTs examined indicators of social capital, with larger post-intervention differences in physical activity levels between trial arms found in those with higher baseline social support for exercise in one trial only. No RCTs examined differential effects by participant occupation, religion or sexual orientation. The majority of RCTs of physical activity interventions in primary care record sufficient information on PROGRESS-Plus factors to allow differential effects to be studied. However, very few actually report details of relevant analyses to determine which population subgroups may stand to benefit or be further disadvantaged by intervention efforts.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 tweeters 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 113 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 25 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 15%
Social Sciences 14 12%
Sports and Recreations 10 9%
Psychology 8 7%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 31 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 14 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,277,366
of 15,922,434 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#591
of 1,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,120
of 268,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,434 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,565 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 268,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.