↓ Skip to main content

Designing a workplace return-to-work program for occupational low back pain: an intervention mapping approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2009
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
patent
3 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 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
Designing a workplace return-to-work program for occupational low back pain: an intervention mapping approach
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-10-65
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlo Ammendolia, David Cassidy, Ivan Steenstra, Sophie Soklaridis, Eleanor Boyle, Stephanie Eng, Hamer Howard, Bains Bhupinder, Pierre Côté

Abstract

Despite over 2 decades of research, the ability to prevent work-related low back pain (LBP) and disability remains elusive. Recent research suggests that interventions that are focused at the workplace and incorporate the principals of participatory ergonomics and return-to-work (RTW) coordination can improve RTW and reduce disability following a work-related back injury. Workplace interventions or programs to improve RTW are difficult to design and implement given the various individuals and environments involved, each with their own unique circumstances. Intervention mapping provides a framework for designing and implementing complex interventions or programs. The objective of this study is to design a best evidence RTW program for occupational LBP tailored to the Ontario setting using an intervention mapping approach.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
New Zealand 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 171 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 13%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 10%
Other 12 7%
Other 46 25%
Unknown 29 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Psychology 16 9%
Engineering 11 6%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 36 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 26 December 2023.
All research outputs
#3,691,356
of 25,059,640 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#737
of 4,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,069
of 118,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,059,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 118,897 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.