↓ Skip to main content

Clinical balance assessment: perceptions of commonly-used standardized measures and current practices among physiotherapists in Ontario, Canada

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Clinical balance assessment: perceptions of commonly-used standardized measures and current practices among physiotherapists in Ontario, Canada
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-33
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn M Sibley, Sharon E Straus, Elizabeth L Inness, Nancy M Salbach, Susan B Jaglal

Abstract

Balance impairment is common in multiple clinical populations, and comprehensive assessment is important for identifying impairments, planning individualized treatment programs, and evaluating change over time. However, little information is available regarding whether clinicians who treat balance are satisfied with existing assessment tools. In 2010 we conducted a cross-sectional survey of balance assessment practices among physiotherapists in Ontario, Canada, and reported on the use of standardized balance measures (Sibley et al. 2011 Physical Therapy; 91: 1583-91). The purpose of this study was to analyse additional survey data and i) evaluate satisfaction with current balance assessment practices and standardized measures among physiotherapists who treat adult or geriatric populations with balance impairment, and ii) identify factors associated with satisfaction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 126 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 16%
Student > Master 14 11%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 26 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 30 23%

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 25 March 2013.
All research outputs
#6,293,143
of 19,383,830 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,183
of 1,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,514
of 167,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,383,830 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,636 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 167,885 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.