↓ Skip to main content

Fostering needs assessment and access to medical rehabilitation for patients with chronic disease and endangered work ability: protocol of a multilevel evaluation on the effectiveness and efficacy of…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Fostering needs assessment and access to medical rehabilitation for patients with chronic disease and endangered work ability: protocol of a multilevel evaluation on the effectiveness and efficacy of a CME intervention for general practitioners
Published in
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12995-017-0168-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephan Fuchs, Katrin Parthier, Andreas Wienke, Wilfried Mau, Andreas Klement

Abstract

Studies show that endangered work ability (EWA) can be maintained or restored through medical rehabilitation (MR). For patients, general practitioners (GP) represent an important point of access to MR in outpatient care. However, many different barriers and shortcomings hinder GPs in both timely detection of the need for MR and the recognition of its potentials for their EWA-patients. These are necessary if GPs are to adequately inform patients about MR options and successfully support applications for MR. This study describes the evaluation of a continuing medical education (CME) module designed to improve rehabilitation-related practical performance of GPs regarding a) subjective satisfaction of GPs with the CME module, b) stability of attitudes and knowledge over time regarding rehabilitation, and c) subjective and objective changes in MR-related competencies needed to support MR applications. This study is an open, non-randomised, pre-post-intervention study. The intervention involves a CME module for GPs (n = 1365) in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt on the topic of medical rehabilitation in connection with the federal German pension fund (Deutsche Rentenversicherung). The module will be initially held as regularly scheduled meetings in moderated GP quality circles (QC), and then offered as a written self-study unit. At the end it will be evaluated by the GPs. The study's primary focus is on the organizational practice as measured by the number of approved MR applications supported by medical reports submitted by the participating GPs in the 6 months before and 6 months after the CME module. Other study aims involve measuring self-perceived competencies of GPs, as well as their attitudes towards and knowledge of rehabilitation (both upon completing the CME and 6 months later). In addition, the level of satisfaction with the CME module will be analysed among participating GPs and QC moderators (as CME facilitators). Implementing targeted CME on complex topics such as those involving barriers is possible, even promising, when using QCs and their moderators. Of particular importance is how aware moderating physicians are of the relevance of MR need detection and access. The ethics committee of the Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg has registered this study under the number 2014-13. The study will be reported on in peer-reviewed journals and at national and international conferences. The results will be available to current and future initiatives aiming to improve detection of MR need and making MR accessible to EWEC patients needing such support to minimize the effects of chronic disease on their livess. German Clinical Trials Register (ID number DRKS00006188) and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Universal Trial Number (UTN) U1111-1158-8334.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 12 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Unspecified 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,566,650
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#274
of 394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,135
of 317,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 317,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.