| Title |
National survey of back & neck pain amongst consultant ophthalmologists in the United Kingdom
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Ophthalmology, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10792-015-0036-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan N. Hyer, Richard M. Lee, Haziq R. Chowdhury, Henry B. Smith, Anish Dhital, Mona Khandwala |
| Abstract |
Repetitive tasks, awkward or prolonged working postures, and high cognitive load are risk factors for occupational musculoskeletal disorders. Ophthalmologists may be vulnerable given that they are exposed to a combination of these factors. This national study assesses the prevalence, severity and associations of back and neck pain amongst UK consultant ophthalmologists. A postal survey was conducted using addresses supplied by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson correlation coefficient, two-tailed probability testing, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Dunn's multiple comparison test. 518 responses were received (50.3 % response rate). Back and neck pain were reported by 50.6 % (262/518) and 31.8 % (165/518) of respondents, respectively, with 62.4 % (323/518) reporting one or both. 33.6 % (174/518) reported pain whilst operating, of whom 78.7 % (137/174) found operating exacerbated their pain. 31.7 % (164/518) reported pain when using the slit lamp, of whom 71.3 % (117/164) found it exacerbated their pain. Individual subspecialties showed a significant relative risk of back or neck pain in some circumstances, when compared to ophthalmologists as a whole. Occupational back and neck pain remains a problem amongst ophthalmologists. Recommendations are made for modifications to the working environment, and consideration should be given to improving education for trainees. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 67 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 24% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 22% |
| Unknown | 15 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
| Engineering | 8 | 12% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 06 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,061,242
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from International Ophthalmology
#31
of 1,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,045
of 351,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Ophthalmology
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,032 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 351,830 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.