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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Cost-effectiveness of a vocational enablement protocol for employees with hearing impairment; design of a randomized controlled trial
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Public Health, March 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-12-151 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Arjenne HM Gussenhoven, Johannes R Anema, S Theo Goverts, Judith E Bosmans, Joost M Festen, Sophia E Kramer |
Abstract |
Hearing impairment at the workplace, and the resulting psychosocial problems are a major health problem with substantial costs for employees, companies, and society. Therefore, it is important to develop interventions to support hearing impaired employees. The objective of this article is to describe the design of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the (cost-) effectiveness of a Vocational Enablement Protocol (VEP) compared with usual care. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 75 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 17% |
Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
Researcher | 10 | 13% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
Other | 12 | 16% |
Unknown | 19 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 25% |
Psychology | 11 | 14% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 13% |
Social Sciences | 9 | 12% |
Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
Other | 6 | 8% |
Unknown | 19 | 25% |
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 16 March 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,470
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,753
of 14,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,860
of 155,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#191
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 155,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 215 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.