| Title |
Quality appraisal of generic self-reported instruments measuring health-related productivity changes: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-14-115 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cindy YG Noben, Silvia MAA Evers, Frans J Nijhuis, Angelique E de Rijk |
| Abstract |
Health impairments can result in disability and changed work productivity imposing considerable costs for the employee, employer and society as a whole. A large number of instruments exist to measure health-related productivity changes; however their methodological quality remains unclear. This systematic review critically appraised the measurement properties in generic self-reported instruments that measure health-related productivity changes to recommend appropriate instruments for use in occupational and economic health practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 22% |
| Researcher | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 8% |
| Psychology | 6 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 20 | 22% |
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 05 March 2014.
All research outputs
#15,293,290
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,299
of 14,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,511
of 307,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#210
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,819 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 307,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.