↓ Skip to main content

Interprofessional practices of physiotherapists working with adults with low back pain in Québec’s private sector: results of a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Interprofessional practices of physiotherapists working with adults with low back pain in Québec’s private sector: results of a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-15-160
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kadija Perreault, Clermont E Dionne, Michel Rossignol, Diane Morin

Abstract

Collaboration and interprofessional practices are highly valued in health systems, because they are thought to improve outcomes of care for persons with complex health problems, such as low back pain. Physiotherapists, like all health providers, are encouraged to take part in interprofessional practices. However, little is known about these practices, especially for private sector physiotherapists. This study aimed to: 1) explore how physiotherapists working in the private sector with adults with low back pain describe their interprofessional practices, 2) identify factors that influence their interprofessional practices, and 3) identify their perceived effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 18%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 27 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 31 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 29 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 April 2015.
All research outputs
#13,915,695
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,028
of 4,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,659
of 227,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#41
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 227,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.