↓ Skip to main content

The ICF as a common language for rehabilitation goal-setting: comparing client and professional priorities

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
The ICF as a common language for rehabilitation goal-setting: comparing client and professional priorities
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2011
DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-9-87
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michal Harty, Maryka Griesel, Aletia van der Merwe

Abstract

Joint rehabilitation goals are an important component for effective teamwork in the rehabilitation field. The activities and participation domain of the ICF provides a common language for professionals when setting these goals. Involving clients in the formulation of rehabilitation goals is gaining momentum as part of a person-centred approach to rehabilitation. However, this is particularly difficult when clients have an acquired communication disability. The expressive communication difficulties negatively affect the consensus building process. As a result, obtaining information regarding rehabilitation goals from professionals and their clients warrants further investigation for this particular population.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 128 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 29 22%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 17%
Psychology 14 11%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 28 21%

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 13 October 2011.
All research outputs
#7,866,978
of 12,538,284 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#784
of 1,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,293
of 96,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,538,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,362 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 96,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 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.