↓ Skip to main content

Adoption and use of guidelines for whiplash: an audit of insurer and health professional practice in New South Wales, Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Adoption and use of guidelines for whiplash: an audit of insurer and health professional practice in New South Wales, Australia
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3439-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aila Nica Bandong, Andrew Leaver, Martin Mackey, Rodney Ingram, Samantha Shearman, Christen Chan, Ian D Cameron, Niamh Moloney, Rebecca Mitchell, Eoin Doyle, Emma Leyten, Trudy Rebbeck

Abstract

In Australia, the New South Wales (NSW) State Insurance Regulatory Authority has been continuously developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines to address the health and economic burden from whiplash associated disorders (WAD). Despite this, it is uncertain the extent to which the guidelines are followed. This study aimed to determine insurer and health professional compliance with recommendations of the 2014 NSW clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute WAD; and explore factors related to adherence. This was an observational study involving an audit of 288 randomly-selected claimant files from 4 insurance providers in NSW, Australia between March and October 2016. Data extracted included demographic, claim and injury details, use of health services, and insurer and health professional practices related to the guidelines. Analyses involved descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. Median time for general practitioner medical consultation was 4 days post-injury and 25 days for physical treatment (e.g. physiotherapy). Rates of x-ray investigations were low (21.5%) and most patients (90%) were given active treatments in line with the guideline recommendations. The frequency of other practices recommended by the guidelines suggested lower guideline adherence in some areas such as; using the Quebec Task Force classification (19.9%); not using specialised imaging for WAD grades I and II (e.g. MRI, 45.8%); not using routine passive treatments (e.g. manual therapy, 94.0%); and assessing risk of non-recovery using relevant prognostic tools (e.g. Neck Disability Index, 12.8%). Over half of the claimants (59.0%) were referred to other professionals at 9-12 weeks post-injury, among which 31.2% were to psychologists and 68.8% to specialists (surgical specialists, 43.6%; WAD specialists, 20.5%). Legal representation and lodgment of full claim were associated with increased number of medical visits and imaging (ρ 0.23 to 0.3; p < 0.01). There is evidence of positive uptake of some guideline recommendations by insurers and health professionals; however, there are practices that are not compliant and might lead to poor health outcomes and greater treatment cost. Organisational, regulatory and professional implementation strategies may be considered to change practice, improve scheme performance and ultimately improve outcomes for people with WAD.

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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Researcher 11 13%
Other 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 29 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 18%
Psychology 5 6%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 32 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 28 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,089,304
of 23,968,814 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#798
of 8,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,621
of 334,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#33
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,968,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,068 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 334,352 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 198 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.