↓ Skip to main content

Design of a trial-based economic evaluation on the cost-effectiveness of employability interventions among work disabled employees or employees at risk of work disability: The CASE-study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Design of a trial-based economic evaluation on the cost-effectiveness of employability interventions among work disabled employees or employees at risk of work disability: The CASE-study
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-43
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cindy YG Noben, Frans JN Nijhuis, Angelique E de Rijk, Silvia MAA Evers

Abstract

In the Netherlands, absenteeism and reduced productivity due to work disability lead to high yearly costs reaching almost 5% of the gross national product. To reduce the economic burden of sick leave and reduced productivity, different employability interventions for work-disabled employees or employees at risk of work disability have been developed. Within this study, called 'CASE-study' (Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Sustainable Employability), five different employability interventions directed at work disabled employees with divergent health complaints will be analysed on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This paper describes a consistent and transparent methodological design to do so.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 101 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 22 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 18%
Social Sciences 13 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Psychology 6 6%
Other 26 25%
Unknown 25 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 October 2023.
All research outputs
#7,939,637
of 24,579,850 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,375
of 16,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,085
of 254,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#89
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,579,850 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 254,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.