| Title |
A trial of a job-specific workers' health surveillance program for construction workers: study protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-11-743 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julitta S Boschman, Henk F van der Molen, Cor van Duivenbooden, Judith K Sluiter, Monique HW Frings-Dresen |
| Abstract |
Dutch construction workers are offered periodic health examinations. This care can be improved by tailoring this workers health surveillance (WHS) to the demands of the job and adjust the preventive actions to the specific health risks of a worker in a particular job. To improve the quality of the WHS for construction workers and stimulate relevant job-specific preventive actions by the occupational physician, we have developed a job-specific WHS. The job-specific WHS consists of modules assessing both physical and psychological requirements. The selected measurement instruments chosen, are based on their appropriateness to measure the workers' capacity and health requirements. They include a questionnaire and biometrical tests, and physical performance tests that measure physical functional capabilities. Furthermore, our job-specific WHS provides occupational physicians with a protocol to increase the worker-behavioural effectiveness of their counselling and to stimulate job-specific preventive actions. The objective of this paper is to describe and clarify our study to evaluate the behavioural effects of this job-specific WHS on workers and occupational physicians. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 26% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
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 01 October 2011.
All research outputs
#15,236,094
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,236
of 14,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,475
of 131,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#162
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 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 14,735 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 131,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 198 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.