↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of an intervention comprising a No Lifting Policy in Australian hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Ergonomics, September 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of an intervention comprising a No Lifting Policy in Australian hospitals
Published in
Applied Ergonomics, September 2005
DOI 10.1016/j.apergo.2005.05.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inga-Lill Engkvist

Abstract

The No Lifting Policy has been adopted in Australia to prevent back pain and injuries among nurses. The present study focuses on the intervention of the "No Lift System" (NLS). The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the use of transfer equipment, number of injuries, pain/symptoms and absence from work among nurses after the intervention of the NLS (n=201), and compare to nurses at two control hospitals (n=256). A comprehensive questionnaire was used for data collection. The results show that at the hospital where the NLS had been introduced, the nurses used the purchased transfer equipment regularly. They had significantly fewer back injuries, less pain/symptoms and less absence from work due to musculoskeletal pain/symptoms compared with nurses at the control hospitals. The study showed strong evidence for supporting the implementation of the NLS. The positive results shown in the present study can probably be explained by the agreement between the management, the union and the nurses concerning the implementation of the NLS, as well as its comprehensive approach and participatory design.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 74 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Engineering 14 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 16 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,148,499
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Applied Ergonomics
#507
of 1,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,627
of 70,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Ergonomics
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,658 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 70,414 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 66% of its contemporaries.