↓ Skip to main content

Patient outcomes and experiences of an acupuncture and self-care service for persistent low back pain in the NHS: a mixed methods approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
33 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 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
Patient outcomes and experiences of an acupuncture and self-care service for persistent low back pain in the NHS: a mixed methods approach
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6882-13-300
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Cheshire, Marie Polley, David Peters, Damien Ridge

Abstract

Supported self-management, acupuncture and information can help reduce the symptoms of low back pain. These approaches are currently recommended by NICE guidance as treatment options for patients with persistent low back pain. However, there has been no previous evaluation of a service providing them together for this common problem. The purpose of this service evaluation was to report patient outcomes and experiences of the Beating Back Pain Service (BBPS), a pilot service based in a primary and community care setting, delivering acupuncture, self-management and information to patients with chronic low back pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 180 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 19%
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Researcher 24 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 35 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 15%
Psychology 22 12%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 44 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 13 June 2016.
All research outputs
#1,042,392
of 24,195,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#162
of 3,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,733
of 218,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#7
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,195,945 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 218,706 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 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.