| Title |
Baseline characteristics in female cancer patients with unimproved work status after an outpatient rehabilitation program and health changes during the intervention
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-2663-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lene Thorsen, Alv A. Dahl, Roy Nystad, Cecilie E. Kiserud, Amy Ø. Geirdal, Sigbjørn Smeland |
| Abstract |
To improve work ability and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) cancer patients were offered a "Rapid-Return to Work" program. However, several patients did not improve their work status after completing the program. The first aim of this study was to identify the proportion of patients with unimproved work status 6 months after the program (follow-up). The second aim was to identify baseline characteristics associated with unimproved work status and the third aim to measure changes in HRQOL from baseline to follow-up in the unimproved compared to the improved group. The program consisted of patient education, group discussions and physical activity during a full day weekly for 7 weeks. All patients completed a questionnaire at baseline and follow-up, covering demographic-, cancer-related-, co-morbidity and lifestyle variables, HRQOL (EORTC QLQ-C30) and fatigue (Fatigue Questionnaire). 106 female cancer patients completed the program and responded to the follow-up. Thirty-six percent had unimproved work status. Patients in the unimproved group more frequently were in paired relations and had more fatigue at baseline than the improved group. Whereas patients in the improved group increased in 14 of 19 HRQOL parameters, the unimproved group increased in seven of these parameters. Both groups experienced improvement concerning fatigue. After the program more than one third of the participants did not improve their work status. Patients in paired relations and with more fatigue at baseline were more likely to have unimproved work status. Those within the unimproved group experienced less improvement in HRQOL parameters during the program than those in the improved group. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 23% |
| Psychology | 3 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 November 2023.
All research outputs
#8,328,072
of 24,911,633 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#521
of 1,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,737
of 363,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#70
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,911,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 363,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 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 62% of its contemporaries.