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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Divided by a lack of common language? - a qualitative study exploring the use of language by health professionals treating back pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-10-123 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karen L Barker, Margaret Reid, Catherine J Minns Lowe |
| Abstract |
The importance of using a common language when communicating to others about back pain is acknowledged in the literature. There are broadly three areas where difficulties in communication about back pain arise. Firstly, patients seeking information from health care professionals can experience difficulties understanding them and the medical literature; secondly, misunderstandings among health professionals concerning terminology can arise. Thirdly, the lack of standardised definitions for back pain terms can make comparison of research studies problematic. This study aims to explore the meanings and issues surrounding the use of existing medical terms for back pain from the perspective of health care professionals, lay people who have consulted health care practitioners for back pain and lay people who have not seen a health care professional regarding back pain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 20 | 28% |
| United States | 11 | 15% |
| Canada | 8 | 11% |
| Australia | 3 | 4% |
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 55 | 76% |
| Scientists | 8 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 183 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 48 | 25% |
| Other | 21 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 35 | 19% |
| Unknown | 32 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 57 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 29% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Unknown | 41 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 01 October 2023.
All research outputs
#727,958
of 25,600,774 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#89
of 4,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,751
of 107,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,600,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 107,144 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.