↓ Skip to main content

Brain injury rehabilitation after road trauma in new South Wales, Australia – insights from a data linkage study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Brain injury rehabilitation after road trauma in new South Wales, Australia – insights from a data linkage study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3019-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Wu, Steven G. Faux, Christopher J. Poulos, Ian Harris

Abstract

Population-based patterns of care studies are important for trauma care but conducting them is expensive and resource-intensive. Linkage of routinely collected administrative health data may provide an efficient alternative. The aims of this study are to describe the rehabilitation pathway for trauma survivors and to analyse the brain injury rehabilitation outcomes in the two care settings (specialist brain injury and non-specialist general rehabilitation units). This is an observational study using routinely collected registry data (New South Wales Trauma Registry linked with the Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre Inpatient Dataset). The study cohort includes 268 road trauma patients who were admitted to trauma services between 2009 and 2012 and received inpatient rehabilitation because of a brain injury. Of those who need inpatient rehabilitation, 62% (n = 166) were admitted to specialist units with the remainder (n = 102) admitted to non-specialist units. Those admitted to a specialist units were younger (p < 0.001), had a lower cognitive FIM score (p = 0.003) on admission than those admitted to non-specialist units. Specialist units achieved better overall FIM score improvements from admission to discharge (43 vs 30 points, p > 0.001) but at a cost of longer length of stay (median 47 vs 24 days, p < 0.001). There were very few discharges to residential aged care facilities from rehabilitation (2% in non-specialist units and none from specialist units). There was a long time lag between trauma and admission to inpatient rehabilitation with only a quarter of the patients admitted to a specialist unit by end of week four. Few older patients (19%) with brain injury were admitted to specialist units. It is feasible to use routinely collected registry data to monitor inpatient rehabilitation outcomes of trauma care. There were differences in characteristics and outcomes of patients with traumatic brain injury admitted to specialist units compared with non-specialist units.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 18 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Psychology 6 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 19 50%
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 14 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,979,439
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,435
of 7,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,464
of 331,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#154
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 331,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.