| Title |
The Global Burden of Occupational Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Environmental Health Reports, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40572-017-0151-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lesley Rushton |
| Abstract |
Burden of occupational disease estimation contributes to understanding of both magnitude and relative importance of different occupational hazards and provides essential information for targeting risk reduction. This review summarises recent key findings and discusses their impact on occupational regulation and practice. New methods have been developed to estimate burden of occupational disease that take account of the latency of many chronic diseases and allow for exposure trends and workforce turnover. Results from these studies have shown in several countries and globally that, in spite of improvements in workplace technology, practices and exposures over the last decades, occupational hazards remain an important cause of ill health and mortality worldwide. Major data gaps have been identified particularly regarding exposure information. Reliable data on employment and disease are also lacking especially in developing countries. Burden of occupational disease estimates form an important part of decision-making processes. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 235 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 38 | 16% |
| Researcher | 19 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 39 | 17% |
| Unknown | 92 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 13 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Engineering | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 27 | 11% |
| Unknown | 98 | 42% |
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 15 April 2019.
All research outputs
#8,262,193
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Current Environmental Health Reports
#223
of 357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,418
of 328,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Environmental Health Reports
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 357 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 328,384 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.