↓ Skip to main content

Meditative Movement as a Treatment for Pulmonary Dysfunction in Flight Attendants Exposed to Second-Hand Cigarette Smoke: Study Protocol for a Randomized Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Meditative Movement as a Treatment for Pulmonary Dysfunction in Flight Attendants Exposed to Second-Hand Cigarette Smoke: Study Protocol for a Randomized Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00038
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Payne, David Zava, Steven Fiering, Mardi Crane-Godreau

Abstract

A study protocol is presented for the investigation of meditative movement (MM) as a treatment for pulmonary dysfunction in flight attendants (FA) who were exposed to second-hand cigarette smoke while flying before the smoking ban. The study will have three parts, some of which will run concurrently. The first is a data gathering and screening phase, which will gather data on pulmonary and other aspects of the health of FA, and will also serve to screen participants for the other phases. Second is an exercise selection phase, in which a variety of MM exercises will be taught, over a 16-week period, to a cohort of 20 FA. A subset of these exercises will be selected on the basis of participant feedback on effectiveness and compliance. Third is a 52-week randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a digitally delivered form of the previously selected exercises on a group of 20 FA, as compared with an attention control group. Outcome measures to be used in all three parts of the study include the 6-min walk test as a primary measure, as well as a range of biomarkers, tests, and questionnaires documenting hormonal, cardio-respiratory, autonomic, and affective state. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02612389.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,447,592
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#6,872
of 10,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,739
of 300,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#57
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 300,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.