↓ Skip to main content

A Research Agenda for Advancing Non-pharmacological Management of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Findings from a VHA State-of-the-art Conference

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 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 (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
A Research Agenda for Advancing Non-pharmacological Management of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Findings from a VHA State-of-the-art Conference
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4345-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

William C. Becker, Lynn L. DeBar, Alicia A. Heapy, Diana Higgins, Sarah L. Krein, Anthony Lisi, Una E. Makris, Kelli D. Allen

Abstract

Chronic pain is widely prevalent among Veterans and can have serious negative consequences for functional status and quality of life among other domains. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) convened a state-of-the-art (SOTA) conference to develop research priorities for advancing the science and clinical practice of non-pharmacological management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. In this perspective article, we present the methods and consensus recommendations for research priorities emanating from the SOTA. In the months leading up to the SOTA, a core group of researchers defined four areas of focus: psychological/behavioral therapies; exercise/movement therapies; manual therapies; and models for delivering multi-modal pain care and divided into workgroups. Each workgroup, in their respective areas of focus, identified seminal studies capturing the state of the evidence. Herein, we present consensus recommendations ranging from efficacy to effectiveness to implementation/dissemination research depending on the state of the evidence as assessed by participants, including commentary on common elements across workgroups and future areas of innovation in study design, measurement, and outcome ascertainment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 20%
Psychology 5 7%
Unspecified 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 27 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,392,813
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,820
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,531
of 332,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#53
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 332,610 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.