| Title |
Identifying patients’ beliefs about treatments for chronic low back pain in primary care: a focus group study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp13x669211 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexandra Dima, George T Lewith, Paul Little, Rona Moss-Morris, Nadine E Foster, Felicity L Bishop |
| Abstract |
Current evidence-based guidelines for low back pain (LBP) recommend multiple diverse approaches to treatment and suggest considering patient preferences when formulating a treatment plan. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Malta | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 239 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 41 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 11% |
| Researcher | 27 | 11% |
| Other | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 58 | 24% |
| Unknown | 46 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 71 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 16% |
| Psychology | 21 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 35 | 14% |
| Unknown | 61 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 07 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,810,161
of 25,813,008 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,307
of 4,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,100
of 207,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#16
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,813,008 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 207,661 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 71% of its contemporaries.