↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric
What is this page?Embed badge
Overview of attention for article published in Preventive Medicine, November 2015
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
- 6 X users
Citations
- dimensions_citation
- 52 Dimensions
Readers on
- mendeley
- 169 Mendeley
SummaryXDimensions citations
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 | Absolute and relative densities of fast-food versus other restaurants in relation to weight status: Does restaurant mix matter? |
---|---|
Published in | Preventive Medicine, November 2015 |
DOI | 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.11.008 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors | Jane Y. Polsky, Rahim Moineddin, James R. Dunn, Richard H. Glazier, Gillian L. Booth |
Abstract | Given the continuing epidemic of obesity, policymakers are increasingly looking for levers within the local retail food environment as a means of promoting healthy weights.To examine the independent and joint associations of absolute and relative densities of restaurants near home with weight status in a large, urban, population-based sample of adults.We studied 10,199 adults living in one of four cities in southern Ontario, Canada, who participated in the Canadian Community Health Survey (cycles 2005, 2007/08, 2009/10). Multivariate models assessed the association of weight status (obesity and body mass index) with absolute densities (numbers) of fast-food, full-service and other restaurants, and the relative density (proportion) of fast-food restaurants (FFR) relative to all restaurants within ~10-minute walk of residential areas.Higher numbers of restaurants of any type were inversely related to excess weight, even in models adjusting for a range of individual covariates and area deprivation. However, these associations were no longer significant after accounting for higher walkability of areas with high volumes of restaurants. In contrast, there was a direct relationship between the proportion of FFR relative to all restaurants and excess weight, particularly in areas with high volumes of FFR (e.g., Odds Ratio for obesity=2.55 in areas with 5+ FFR, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.55-4.17, across the interquartile range).Policies aiming to promote healthy weights that target the volume of certain retail food outlets in residential settings may be more effective if they also consider the relative share of outlets serving more and less healthful foods. |
View on publisher siteAlert me about new mentions
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 3 | 50% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
United States | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 166 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 31 | 18% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 12% |
Researcher | 18 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 16 | 9% |
Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 5% |
Other | 35 | 21% |
Unknown | 41 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 16% |
Social Sciences | 19 | 11% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 11% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 5% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 5% |
Other | 31 | 18% |
Unknown | 57 | 34% |
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 23 February 2016.
All research outputs
#7,714,335
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Preventive Medicine
#2,653
of 5,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,822
of 293,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Preventive Medicine
#28
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 293,254 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 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
This page is provided by Altmetric.
Altmetric