↓ Skip to main content

Work participation of patients with musculoskeletal disorders: is this addressed in physical therapy practice?

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#41 of 411)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Work participation of patients with musculoskeletal disorders: is this addressed in physical therapy practice?
Published in
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12995-017-0174-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wiebke Oswald, Nathan Hutting, Josephine A. Engels, J. Bart Staal, Maria W. G. Nijhuis-van der Sanden, Yvonne F. Heerkens

Abstract

Musculoskeletal disorders are the main complaints for visiting a physical therapist (PT) in primary health care; they have a negative effect on an individual's quality of life and result in a major cost to society. Qualitative research has shown that physical therapists (PTs) treating patients with these disorders experience barriers in the integration of occupational factors within their practice, and also revealed a lack of cooperation between PTs and (other) occupational healthcare providers. The aim of this study is to quantitatively investigate how generalist PTs in the Netherlands, who treat patients with musculoskeletal disorders, currently integrate occupational factors within their practice, and to identify their opinions and needs with regard to enhancing the integration of the patient's work within physical therapy practice. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among generalist PTs who treat working-age (18-67 years) patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Generalist PTs were contacted for participation via digital news-mails and asked to fill out an online survey which was developed based on the results of a recent qualitative study. The survey consisted of: i) demographics of the participants, ii) questions on how generalist PTs currently integrate occupational factors within their practice, and iii) asked their opinion about the integration of occupational factors within physical therapy. The PTs were also asked about their needs with regard to the integration of occupational factors and with regard to cooperation with other (occupational) health professionals. All answers (using Likert scales) are presented as the number and percentage of the respondents reporting those specific answers, whereas all other answers are presented as means and standard deviations. Of the 142 respondents, 64% indicated that occupational factors should be addressed to a greater extent within physical therapy. To have the possibility to bill for a workplace assessment (60.6%) and more knowledge about laws and regulations (50%) were identified as needs of the respondents. Only 14.8% of the respondents indicated that they communicate with or consult a PT specialized in occupational health. Only 12.7% of the participants who do not have a specialized PT within their practice sometimes/regularly refer patients to a specialized PT. Although generalist PTs address occupational factors within their practice, there is room for improvement. This study also identified a lack of cooperation between generalist PTs and PTs specialized in occupational health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 26 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Engineering 5 8%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 28 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,147,248
of 24,777,509 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#41
of 411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,489
of 321,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,777,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 321,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 99% of its contemporaries.