↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Physical activity in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension – insights into motivations and barriers from the MOBILE study

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
Title
Physical activity in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension – insights into motivations and barriers from the MOBILE study
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s84832
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martine Duclos, Sylvie Dejager, Nicolas Postel-Vinay, Sylvie di Nicola, Stéphane Quéré, Béatrice Fiquet

Abstract

Although physical activity (PA) is key in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and hypertension, it is difficult to implement in practice. Cross-sectional, observational study. Participating physicians were asked to recruit two active and four inactive patients, screened with the Ricci-Gagnon (RG) self-questionnaire (active if score ≥16). Patients subsequently completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The objective was to assess the achievement of individualized glycated hemoglobin and blood pressure goals (<140/90 mmHg) in the active vs inactive cohort, to explore the correlates for meeting both targets by multivariate analysis, and to examine the barriers and motivations to engage in PA. About 1,766 patients were analyzed. Active (n=628) vs inactive (n=1,138) patients were more often male, younger, less obese, had shorter durations of diabetes, fewer complications and other health issues, such as osteoarticular disorders (P<0.001 for all). Their diabetes and hypertension control was better and obtained despite a lower treatment burden. The biggest difference in PA between the active vs inactive patients was the percentage who declared engaging in regular leisure-type PA (97.9% vs 9.6%), also reflected in the percentage with vigorous activities in International Physical Activity Questionnaire (59.5% vs 9.6%). Target control was achieved by 33% of active and 19% of inactive patients (P<0.001). Active patients, those with fewer barriers to PA, with lower treatment burden, and with an active physician, were more likely to reach targets. The physician's role emerged in the motivations (reassurance on health issues, training on hypoglycemia risk, and prescription/monitoring of the PA by the physician). A negative self-image was the highest ranked barrier for the inactive patients, followed by lack of support and medical concerns. Physicians should consider PA prescription as seriously as any drug prescription, and take into account motivations and barriers to PA to tailor advice to patients' specific needs and reduce their perceived constraints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 152 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Researcher 12 8%
Lecturer 10 6%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 50 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 12%
Sports and Recreations 11 7%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 56 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
#7,301,044
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#241
of 804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,025
of 281,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 281,399 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.