↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of a randomized controlled trial on the effect on return to work with coaching combined with light therapy and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for workers with work-related chronic…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 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
Evaluation of a randomized controlled trial on the effect on return to work with coaching combined with light therapy and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for workers with work-related chronic stress
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4720-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Nieuwenhuijsen, Antonius M.C. Schoutens, Monique H.W. Frings-Dresen, Judith K. Sluiter

Abstract

Chronic work-related stress is quite prevalent in the working population and is in some cases accompanied by long-term sick leave. These stress complaints highly impact employees and are costly due to lost productivity and medical expenses. A new treatment platform with light therapy plus Pulsed Electro Magnetic Fields (PEMF) in combination with coaching was used to assess whether more positive effects on return to work, stress, work-related fatigue, and quality of life could be induced compared to coaching alone. A placebo-controlled trial was executed after inclusion of 96 workers, aged 18-65 with work-related chronic stress complaints and who were on sick leave (either part-time or full-time). Participants were divided into three arms at random. Group 1 (n = 28) received the treatment and coaching (Intervention group), group 2 (n = 28) received the treatment with the device turned off and coaching (Placebo group) and group 3 (n = 28) received coaching only (Control group). The data were collected at baseline, and after 6, 12 and 24 weeks. The primary outcome was % return to work, and secondary outcomes were work-related fatigue (emotional exhaustion and need for recovery after work), stress (distress and hair cortisol), and quality of life (SF-36 dimensions: vitality, emotional role limitation, and social functioning). Eighty-four workers completed all measurements, 28 in each group. All groups improved significantly over time in the level of return to work, as well as on all secondary outcomes. No statistical differences between the three groups were found either on the primary outcome or on any of the secondary outcomes. Light therapy with Pulsed Electro Magnetic Fields PEMF therapy has no additional effect on return to work, stress, fatigue, and quality of live compared to coaching alone. NTR4794 , registration date: 18-sep-2014.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Master 16 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 49 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 53 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 20 December 2022.
All research outputs
#4,126,325
of 25,139,853 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,652
of 16,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,567
of 328,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#52
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,139,853 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 328,863 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 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 64% of its contemporaries.