↓ Skip to main content

Functional status following injury: What recovery pathways do people follow?

Overview of attention for article published in Injury, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
54 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.
Article details
Title
Functional status following injury: What recovery pathways do people follow?
Published in
Injury, April 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.injury.2015.04.004
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Functional status can be affected for considerable time after injury. Individual's functional status trajectories, or pathways, following injury may provide insights into achieving, or not achieving, optimal functional status. This study aims to (1) investigate functional status trajectories of injured individuals over two years by multiple dimensions and, (2) determine whether there are differences in functional status trajectories between those hospitalised and non-hospitalised. Data from the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study, a longitudinal cohort (n=2856) of injured New Zealanders, was used. Functional status was assessed using the EQ-5D (plus a cognitive dimension) at 3, 12 and 24 months post injury. For each dimension (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort anxiety/depression and cognition), individual-level trajectories were created based on whether participants had attained (or exceeded) their pre-injury functional status at each time-point. Participants had varied pathways to attaining their pre-injury functional status which was not revealed by cross-sectional group-level data. When all dimensions were considered together, 24% of participants attained their pre-injury functional status but did not maintain it at a subsequent phase. By EQ-5D dimension, this varied from 5% (self-care) to 22% (pain/discomfort). Twenty-six percent of non-hospitalised participants attained, but did not maintain, their pre-injury status compared to 18% of those hospitalised. Cross-sectional group-level prevalence does not adequately depict the underlying pathways experienced by individual participants. Our analyses indicate the importance of following up all study participants in longitudinal studies, including those reporting to have attained 'recovery' and of not under-estimating the impact of non-hospitalised injuries.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Psychology 5 9%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 20 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Injury
#1,204
of 3,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,394
of 279,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Injury
#22
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 279,242 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.