↓ Skip to main content

Illness perceptions in the context of differing work participation outcomes: exploring the influence of significant others in persistent back pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
Illness perceptions in the context of differing work participation outcomes: exploring the influence of significant others in persistent back pain
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-14-48
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Brooks, Serena McCluskey, Nigel King, Kim Burton

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that the significant others of individuals with persistent back pain may have important influences on work participation outcomes. The aim of this study was to extend previous research by including individuals who have remained in work despite persistent back pain in addition to those who had become incapacitated for work, along with their significant others. The purpose of this research was to explore whether the illness beliefs of significant others differed depending on their relative's working status, and to make some preliminary identification of how significant others may facilitate or hinder work participation for those with persistent back pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 118 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 22%
Student > Master 23 19%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 16 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 24%
Psychology 23 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 22 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 26 March 2015.
All research outputs
#2,062,525
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#417
of 4,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,075
of 282,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#7
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 282,145 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 93% of its contemporaries.