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 |
Health care professionals’ attitudes towards evidence-based medicine in the workers’ compensation setting: a cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12911-017-0460-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nieke A. Elbers, Robin Chase, Ashley Craig, Lyn Guy, Ian A. Harris, James W. Middleton, Michael K. Nicholas, Trudy Rebbeck, John Walsh, Simon Willcock, Keri Lockwood, Ian D Cameron |
| Abstract |
Problems may arise during the approval process of treatment after a compensable work injury, which include excess paperwork, delays in approving services, disputes, and allegations of over-servicing. This is perceived as undesirable for injured people, health care professionals and claims managers, and costly to the health care system, compensation system, workplaces and society. Introducing an Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) decision tool in the workers' compensation system could provide a partial solution, by reducing uncertainty about effective treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate attitudes of health care professionals (HCP) to the potential implementation of an EBM tool in the workers' compensation setting. The study has a mixed methods design. The quantitative study consisted of an online questionnaire asking about self-reported knowledge, attitudes and behaviour to EBM in general. The qualitative study consisted of interviews about an EBM tool being applied in the workers' compensation process. Participants were health care practitioners from different clinical specialties. They were recruited through the investigators' clinical networks and the workers' compensation government regulator's website. Participants completing the questionnaire (n = 231) indicated they were knowledgeable about the evidence-base in their field, but perceived some difficulties when applying EBM. General practitioners reported having the greatest obstacles to applying EBM. Participants who were interviewed (n = 15) perceived that an EBM tool in the workers' compensation setting could potentially have some advantages, such as reducing inappropriate treatment, or over-servicing, and providing guidance for clinicians. However, participants expressed substantial concerns that the EBM tool would not adequately reflect the impact of psychosocial factors on recovery. They also highlighted a lack of timeliness in decision making and proper assessment, particularly in pain management. Overall, HCP are supportive of EBM, but have strong concerns about implementation of EBM based decision making in the workers' compensation setting. The participants felt that an EBM tool should not be applied rigidly and should take into account clinical judgement and patient variability and preferences. In general, the treatment approval process in the workers' compensation insurance system is a sensitive area, in which the interaction between HCP and claims managers can be improved. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 14% |
| Psychology | 11 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,683,641
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,124
of 2,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,910
of 314,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#27
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,026 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 314,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.