↓ Skip to main content

Study protocol of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention in the evolution of non-specific sub-acute low back pain in the working population: cluster…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
253 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
Study protocol of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention in the evolution of non-specific sub-acute low back pain in the working population: cluster randomised trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-12-194
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Berenguera, Enriqueta Pujol-Ribera, Teresa Rodriguez-Blanco, Concepció Violan, Marc Casajuana, Nelleke de Kort, Marta Trapero-Bertran

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP), with high incidence and prevalence rate, is one of the most common reasons to consult the health system and is responsible for a significant amount of sick leave, leading to high health and social costs. The objective of the study is to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial educational group intervention (MBEGI) of non-specific sub-acute LBP in comparison with the usual care in the working population recruited in primary healthcare centres.

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 253 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 246 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 16%
Researcher 33 13%
Student > Bachelor 33 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 43 17%
Unknown 61 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 12%
Psychology 15 6%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 77 30%
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 04 October 2011.
All research outputs
#13,857,114
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,013
of 4,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,389
of 123,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#27
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 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 4,021 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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 123,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.