↓ Skip to main content

Consultations with complementary and alternative medicine practitioners amongst wider care options for back pain: a study of a nationally representative sample of 1,310 Australian women aged 60–65…

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Rheumatology, August 2013
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Consultations with complementary and alternative medicine practitioners amongst wider care options for back pain: a study of a nationally representative sample of 1,310 Australian women aged 60–65 years
Published in
Clinical Rheumatology, August 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10067-013-2357-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vijayendra Murthy, David Sibbritt, Jon Adams, Alex Broom, Emma Kirby, Kathryn M. Refshauge

Abstract

Back pain is a significant health service issue in Australia and internationally. Back pain sufferers can draw upon a range of health care providers including complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners. Women are higher users of health services than men and tend to use CAM frequently for musculoskeletal conditions. However, there remain important gaps in our understanding of women's consultation patterns with CAM practitioners for back pain. The objective of this study is to examine the prevalence of use and characteristics of women who use CAM practitioners for back pain. The method used was a survey of a nationally representative sample of women aged 60-65 years from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. Women consulted a massage therapist (44.1 %, n = 578) and a chiropractor (37.3 %, n = 488) more than other CAM practitioners for their back pain. Consultations with a chiropractor for back pain were lower for women who consulted a General Practitioner (GP) (OR, 0.56; 95 % CI 0.41, 0.76) or a physiotherapist (OR, 0.53; 95 % CI 0.39, 0.72) than for those who did not consult a GP or a physiotherapist. CAM practitioner consultations for back pain were greater for women who visited a pharmacist (OR, 1.99; 95 % CI 1.23, 3.32) than for women who did not visit a pharmacist. There is substantial use of CAM practitioners alongside conventional practitioners amongst women for back pain, and there is a need to provide detailed examination of the communication between patients and their providers as well as across the diverse range of health professionals involved in back pain care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 23 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 22%
Computer Science 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 22 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 September 2013.
All research outputs
#3,808,797
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#541
of 3,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,220
of 197,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#4
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 197,838 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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.