↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Belief reinforcement: one reason why costs for low back pain have not decreased

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 316)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
113 tweeters
facebook
34 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
Belief reinforcement: one reason why costs for low back pain have not decreased
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, May 2013
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s44117
Pubmed ID
Authors

Max Zusman, Zusman, Max

Abstract

Recent figures show that there has been no change in the upward trend of direct and indirect costs for the largely benign symptom of low back pain in Western societies. This is despite greater understanding and the recommendation of a much more conservative and independent approach to its management. Moreover, in recent years, several large-scale education programs that aim to bring knowledge of the public (including general practitioners) more in line with evidence-based best practice were carried out in different countries. The hope was that the information imparted would change beliefs, ie, dysfunctional patient behavior and biomedical practice on the part of clinicians. However, these programs had no influence on behavior or costs in three out of the four countries in which they were implemented. It is argued that one reason for the overall lack of success is that it is extremely difficult to alter the potentially disabling belief among the lay public that low back pain has a structural mechanical cause. An important reason for this is that this belief continues to be regularly reinforced by the conditions of care of a range of "hands-on" providers, for whom idiosyncratic variations of that view are fundamental to their professional existence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 113 tweeters 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 157 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 26%
Other 37 22%
Student > Postgraduate 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 41 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 23%
Unspecified 11 7%
Sports and Recreations 10 6%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 14 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 91. 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 20 March 2019.
All research outputs
#169,719
of 13,099,193 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#4
of 316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,899
of 149,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,099,193 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 149,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.