↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence and its risk factors for low back pain among operation and maintenance personnel in wind farms

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Prevalence and its risk factors for low back pain among operation and maintenance personnel in wind farms
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1180-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ning Jia, Tao Li, Shuangqiu Hu, Xinhe Zhu, Kang Sun, Long Yi, Qiong Zhang, Guilian Luo, Yuzhen Li, Xueyan Zhang, Yongen Gu, Zhongxu Wang

Abstract

With the increasingly severe energy shortage and climate change problems, developing wind power has become a key energy development strategy and an inevitable choice to protect the ecological environment worldwide. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of low back pain (LBP) and analyze its risk factors among operation and maintenance personnel in wind farms (OMPWF). A cross-sectional survey of 151 OMPWF was performed, and a comprehensive questionnaire, which was modified and combined from Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaires (NMQ), Washington State Ergonomics Tool (WSET) and Syndrome Checklist-90(SCL-90) was used to assess the prevalence and risk factors of LBP among OMPWF. The prevalence of LBP was 88.74 % (134/151) among OMPWF. The multivariable model highlighted four related factors: backrest, somatization, squatting and lifting objects weighing more than 10 lb more than twice per minute. The prevalence of LBP among OMPWF appears to be high and highlights a major occupational health concern.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 17%
Engineering 6 14%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Psychology 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 21%

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 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#9,794,426
of 12,259,388 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,920
of 2,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,188
of 342,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#107
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,259,388 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 342,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.