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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evaluation of work disability and the international classification of functioning, disability and health: what to expect and what not
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-12-470 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica Anner, Urban Schwegler, Regina Kunz, Bruno Trezzini, Wout de Boer |
| Abstract |
Individuals who are sick and unable to work may receive wage replacement benefits from an insurer. For these provisions, a disability evaluation is required. This disability evaluation is criticised for lack of standardisation and transparency. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) was developed to express the situation of people with disability. We discuss potential benefits of the ICF to structure and phrase disability evaluation in the field of social insurance. We describe core features of disability evaluation of the ICF across countries. We address how and to what extent the ICF may be applied in disability evaluation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Finland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 21% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 September 2012.
All research outputs
#14,146,599
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,254
of 14,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,305
of 164,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#186
of 283 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 164,032 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 283 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.