↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of a proactive health and safety risk management system in the fire service

Overview of attention for article published in Injury Epidemiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Efficacy of a proactive health and safety risk management system in the fire service
Published in
Injury Epidemiology, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40621-018-0148-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerald S. Poplin, Stephanie Griffin, Keshia Pollack Porter, Joshua Mallett, Chengcheng Hu, Virginia Day-Nash, Jefferey L. Burgess

Abstract

This study evaluated the efficacy of a fire department proactive risk management program aimed at reducing firefighter injuries and their associated costs. Injury data were collected for the intervention fire department and a contemporary control department. Workers' compensation claim frequency and costs were analyzed for the intervention fire department only. Total, exercise, patient transport, and fireground operations injury rates were calculated for both fire departments. There was a post-intervention average annual reduction in injuries (13%), workers' compensation injury claims (30%) and claims costs (21%). Median monthly injury rates comparing the post-intervention to the pre-intervention period did not show statistically significant changes in either the intervention or control fire department. Reduced workers' compensation claims and costs were observed following the risk management intervention, but changes in injury rates were not statistically significant.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Engineering 4 9%
Sports and Recreations 4 9%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 16 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 28 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,617,829
of 14,737,820 outputs
Outputs from Injury Epidemiology
#67
of 172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,358
of 225,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Injury Epidemiology
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,737,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 225,522 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.