↓ Skip to main content

Application of the ICF based Norwegian function assessment scale to employees in Germany

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Application of the ICF based Norwegian function assessment scale to employees in Germany
Published in
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12995-017-0183-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvia Jankowiak, Uwe Rose, Norbert Kersten

Abstract

At the interface of the occupational setting and rehabilitation, normative values for functional ability are desirable and worthwhile. The Norwegian Function Assessment Scale (NFAS) is a 39 item self-report instrument based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). As the questionnaire was not used in a working population, we aimed to obtain functional levels of employees in Germany as measured through the NFAS. The NFAS was included in the Study on Mental Health at Work (S-MGA) 2011/12, a representative German survey of employees aged 31 to 60 years. For descriptive analyses, 95% confidence intervals were applied through bootstrap estimation to the skewed data of the NFAS (range from 1 = 'no difficulty' to 5 = 'could not do it'). The data were analysed by age decades, professional qualification, and by disabilities, congenital diseases and accidents, stratified by sex. Linear regression analyses were conducted to estimate adjusted effects of age, professional qualification, and health limitations. The NFAS total score was 1.17 (95% CI = 1.15-1.17). Thirty-five percent of the employees' (1378 out of 3937 participants) reported the best possible functional ability (NFAS total score of 1.00). Managing and walking/standing were the NFAS' most affected domains with a score of 1.26 (95% CI = 1.23-1.27), respectively. The regression analysis confirmed more functional difficulties for elder employees, females, employees with low professional qualification, and for employees suffering from disability and accidents. The study presents normative values of functional ability for the workforce. The results are useful for score interpretation in rehabilitation and return-to-work processes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 17%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 17%
Other 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Other 3 25%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 25%
Engineering 2 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Chemistry 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%

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 12 January 2018.
All research outputs
#9,893,315
of 12,355,714 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#175
of 252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,450
of 354,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,355,714 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 252 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 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 354,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.