↓ Skip to main content

Aspects of functioning and environmental factors in medical work capacity evaluations of persons with chronic widespread pain and low back pain can be represented by a combination of applicable ICF…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Aspects of functioning and environmental factors in medical work capacity evaluations of persons with chronic widespread pain and low back pain can be represented by a combination of applicable ICF Core Sets
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-1088
Pubmed ID
Authors

Urban Schwegler, Jessica Anner, Christine Boldt, Andrea Glässel, Veronika Lay, Wout Ernst Lodewijk De Boer, Gerold Stucki, Bruno Trezzini

Abstract

Medical work capacity evaluations play a key role in social security schemes because they usually form the basis for eligibility decisions regarding disability benefits. However, the evaluations are often poorly standardized and lack transparency as decisions on work capacity are based on a claimant's disease rather than on his or her functional capacity. A comprehensive and consistent illustration of a claimant's lived experience in relation to functioning, applying the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the ICF Core Sets (ICF-CS), potentially enhances transparency and standardization of work capacity evaluations. In our study we wanted to establish whether and how the relevant content of work capacity evaluations can be captured by ICF-CS, using disability claimants with chronic widespread pain (CWP) and low back pain (LBP) as examples.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Bachelor 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 20%
Psychology 10 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Other 17 28%
Unknown 9 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 December 2012.
All research outputs
#12,673,552
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,653
of 14,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,605
of 280,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#146
of 282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,764 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 280,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.