↓ Skip to main content

Rationale, design and methods of the Study of Work and Pain (SWAP): a cluster randomised controlled trial testing the addition of a vocational advice service to best current primary care for patients…

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Rationale, design and methods of the Study of Work and Pain (SWAP): a cluster randomised controlled trial testing the addition of a vocational advice service to best current primary care for patients with musculoskeletal pain (ISRCTN 52269669)
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-15-232
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette Bishop, Gwenllian Wynne-Jones, Sarah A Lawton, Danielle van der Windt, Chris Main, Gail Sowden, A Kim Burton, Martyn Lewis, Sue Jowett, Tom Sanders, Elaine M Hay, Nadine E Foster

Abstract

Musculoskeletal pain is a major contributor to short and long term work absence. Patients seek care from their general practitioner (GP) and yet GPs often feel ill-equipped to deal with work issues. Providing a vocational case management service in primary care, to support patients with musculoskeletal problems to remain at or return to work, is one potential solution but requires robust evaluation to test clinical and cost-effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 106 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 28 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 19%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 32 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 January 2015.
All research outputs
#6,881,741
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,351
of 4,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,330
of 225,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#30
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 225,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 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 70% of its contemporaries.