↓ Skip to main content

Rates and Correlates of Unemployment Across Four Common Chronic Pain Diagnostic Categories

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Rates and Correlates of Unemployment Across Four Common Chronic Pain Diagnostic Categories
Published in
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10926-015-9572-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hili Giladi, Whitney Scott, Yoram Shir, Michael J. L. Sullivan

Abstract

Purpose To examine rates and correlates of unemployment across distinct common chronic pain diagnoses. Methods Data were analyzed from a sample of 2,382 patients with chronic pain in the Quebec Pain Registry (QPR). Patients were grouped into the following diagnostic categories based on their primary pain diagnosis recorded in the QPR: musculoskeletal pain; myofascial pain; neuropathic pain, and visceral pain. Analyses were performed to examine the associations between pain diagnosis, patient demographics, pain intensity, depressive symptoms, and unemployment status. Results Pain diagnosis, age, marital status, education, pain intensity, and depressive symptoms were each significant unique predictors of unemployment status in a hierarchical logistic regression analysis; the addition of depressive symptoms in this model contributed to the greatest increment of model fit. Conclusions Depressive symptoms are associated with unemployment across a number of common chronic pain conditions, even when controlling for other factors that are associated with unemployment in these patients. Depressive symptoms, as a modifiable factor, may thus be an important target of intervention for unemployed patients with chronic pain.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 4 5%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 24 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Psychology 7 9%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 32 40%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 February 2015.
All research outputs
#18,401,176
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#535
of 616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,297
of 255,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 255,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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.