↓ Skip to main content

Towards comprehensive and transparent reporting: context-specific additions to the ICF taxonomy for medical evaluations of work capacity involving claimants with chronic widespread pain and low back…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Towards comprehensive and transparent reporting: context-specific additions to the ICF taxonomy for medical evaluations of work capacity involving claimants with chronic widespread pain and low back pain
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-14-361
Pubmed ID
Authors

Urban Schwegler, Jessica Anner, Andrea Glässel, Mirjam Brach, Wout De Boer, Alarcos Cieza, Bruno Trezzini

Abstract

Medical evaluations of work capacity provide key information for decisions on a claimant's eligibility for disability benefits. In recent years, the evaluations have been increasingly criticized for low transparency and poor standardization. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) provides a comprehensive spectrum of categories for reporting functioning and its determinants in terms of impairments and contextual factors and could facilitate transparent and standardized documentation of medical evaluations of work capacity. However, the comprehensiveness of the ICF taxonomy in this particular context has not been empirically examined. In this study, we wanted to identify potential context-specific additions to the ICF for its application in medical evaluations of work capacity involving chronic widespread pain (CWP) and low back pain (LBP).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 25%
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 25%
Computer Science 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 3 11%

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 29 August 2014.
All research outputs
#7,545,512
of 8,702,492 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,977
of 3,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,687
of 187,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#118
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,702,492 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 187,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 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.