↓ Skip to main content

Reasons for non-participation in a primary care-based physical activity trial: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Reasons for non-participation in a primary care-based physical activity trial: a qualitative study
Published in
BMJ Open, January 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011577
Pubmed ID
Authors

S Attwood, K L Morton, J Mitchell, M Van Emmenis, S Sutton, Attwood, S, Morton, K L, Mitchell, J, Van Emmenis, M, Sutton, S, ,

Abstract

To explore reasons for non-participation in a primary care-based physical activity trial and understand how these may contribute to recruitment of non-representative research samples. We also aimed to elicit non-participants' own recommendations for enhancing trial uptake in primary care. Semistructured telephone interviews with non-participants to a randomised controlled trial of a very brief intervention for promoting physical activity conducted in primary care (the Very Brief Interventions trial), with thematic analysis of interview transcripts. 5 general practice (GP) surgeries in the East of England, UK. Interviews were completed with 10 female and 6 male non-participants of white ethnicity and aged between 40 and 71 years. 13 of the 16 interviewees were either active or moderately active according to the GP Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ). Interviewees discussed a range of reasons for non-participation. These included beliefs surrounding the personal relevance of the trial based on preconceptions of intervention content. Many interviewees considered themselves either sufficiently active or too functionally limited to increase activity levels further, so rendering participation pointless in their view. Other identified barriers included a lack of free time, for trial participation and for increasing physical activity, and dissatisfaction with appointment scheduling systems in place at GP surgeries. Interviewees questioned the appropriateness of primary care as a context for delivering interventions to promote physical activity. In general, interviewees were positively disposed towards the idea of trial participation, especially if personal benefits are made salient, but suggested that interventions could be delivered in a different setting such as the internet. To increase participation in physical activity promotion trials conducted in primary care, the content of invitation materials and procedures for contacting potential participants require reconsideration. Specific recommendations include streamlining intervention materials and enhancing their relevance to the health concerns of invitees. ISRCTN72691150; Pre-results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 14 29%
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 16 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 16%
Psychology 4 8%
Sports and Recreations 3 6%
Other 4 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,510,297
of 12,809,841 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#5,364
of 10,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,927
of 264,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#193
of 382 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,809,841 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 264,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 382 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.