↓ Skip to main content

Dosage of pain rehabilitation programs: a qualitative study from patient and professionals’ perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Dosage of pain rehabilitation programs: a qualitative study from patient and professionals’ perspectives
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12891-018-2125-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michiel F. Reneman, Franka P. C. Waterschoot, Elseline Bennen, Henrica R. Schiphorst Preuper, Pieter U. Dijkstra, Jan H. B. Geertzen

Abstract

There is a large and unexplained practice variation in prescribed dosages of pain rehabilitation programs (PRP), and evidence regarding the optimum dosage is unknown. To explore perspectives of patients and rehabilitation professionals regarding dosages of PRP an explorative qualitative research design was performed with thematic analysis. Patients and rehabilitation professionals were recruited from three rehabilitaton centers in the Netherlands. A purposive sample of patients who completed a PRP, with a range of personal and clinical characteristics was included. Rehabilitation professionals from all different disciplines, working within multidisciplinary PRP for a minimum of two years, for at least 0.5 fte were included. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients undergoing PRP, and three focus groups were formed with a total of 17 rehabilitation professionals involved in PRP. All patients were satisfied with received dosage. Factors important in relation to dosage of PRP were categorized into patient related characteristics (case complexity from a biopsychosocial perspective) to treatment related characteristics (logistics and format of the program, interaction between patients and professionals), and external factors (support from others, costs, traveling distance and injury compensation). Professionals concluded that dosage was currently based on historical grounds and clinical expertise. Patients and professionals from different centers considered the same factors related to dosage of PRP, but these considerations (from patients and professionals) led to different dose choices between centers. PRP dosage appeared to be mainly based on historical grounds and clinical expertise. The insights of this study could assist in future research regarding optimum dosage of PRP and rehabilitation programs in general.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 18%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Other 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Other 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Psychology 1 9%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,340,345
of 13,483,547 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#526
of 2,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,369
of 267,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,483,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 267,473 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them