↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of evidence-based rehabilitation for non-specific back pain and common mental health problems: a process evaluation of a nationwide initiative

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Implementation of evidence-based rehabilitation for non-specific back pain and common mental health problems: a process evaluation of a nationwide initiative
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0740-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabeth Björk Brämberg, Charlotte Klinga, Irene Jensen, Hillevi Busch, Gunnar Bergström, Mats Brommels, Johan Hansson

Abstract

Nationwide implementation of guaranteed access to evidence-based rehabilitation was established in Sweden in 2009, through an Act of the Swedish Government. The rehabilitation guarantee's primary goal was to increase the rate of return-to-work, reduce and prevent long-term absenteeism after diagnoses related to back pain and common mental health problems. This study aims to develop knowledge about factors influencing large-scale implementation of complex and extensive interventions in healthcare settings. Three different data sources questionnaires, interviews and documents were used in data collection and analysis. The data were analysed using iterative thematic analysis. The following main facilitators contributed to realization of the rehabilitation guarantee: financial incentives, establishment of project organization, recruitment, in-service training and previous experiences of working in similar projects. Barriers were: the rehabilitation guarantee's short-term project-form, clinicians' attitudes to and competence in working towards return-to-work, lack of guidelines describing treatment modalities in multimodal rehabilitation, and lack of well-defined criteria for inclusion of patients. Documents revealed that the return-to-work goal became less pronounced during the implementation process. Instead, care and health were more often described in documents used to disseminate information about the rehabilitation guarantee. Intermediate outcomes found were: patients with rehabilitation needs were given more adequate priority, increased readiness for future implementation efforts, and increased general competence in psychotherapy, and team-work, which thus became available to patient groups other than those covered by the rehabilitation guarantee. To facilitate implementation of established national policy goals in clinical practice, tools are needed that specifically aim at changing clinicians' attitudes and behaviours in relation to such goals. Our results underline the importance of investing both time and sufficient resources in the activities and in supporting the implementation process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 77 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 13%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 17 21%
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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,156,730
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,029
of 7,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,137
of 255,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#57
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 255,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.