↓ Skip to main content

Desigualdades na autoavaliação de saúde: uma análise para populações do Brasil e de Portugal

Overview of attention for article published in Cadernos de Saúde Pública, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Desigualdades na autoavaliação de saúde: uma análise para populações do Brasil e de Portugal
Published in
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, November 2015
DOI 10.1590/0102-311x00108814
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alice Teles de Carvalho, Deborah Carvalho Malta, Marilisa Berti de Azevedo Barros, Pedro Nuno Ferreira Pinto de Oliveira, Denisa Maria de Melo Vasques Mendonça, Henrique Barros

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the prevalence of poor self-rated health according to socio-demographic variables and the presence of chronic diseases in the populations of Brazil and Portugal. A total of 13,894 individuals ≥ 30 years of age were studied in capitals in Northeast Brazil (VIGITEL 2011) and 20,579 in Portugal (4th NHI, 2005/2006). Poisson regression was used in both analyses of associations, adjusted by covariates. Net prevalence rates of poor health in men in Northeast Brazil and Portugal were 4.3% and 15.5%. Prevalence ratio was 2.72 (95%CI: 2.70-2.75) after standardization by age bracket. In women, prevalence was 8.1% in Northeast Brazil and 25.1% in Portugal (PR: 2.40; 95%CI: 2.39-2.42). The variable that showed the worst inequalities in poor self-rated health was schooling, in both Brazil and Portugal. Current disease had a stronger effect on Brazilians than on Portuguese, in both men and women. Prevalence of poor self-rated health was significantly higher in Portugal in all the groups analyzed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 25%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Librarian 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 19%
Computer Science 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#1,322
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,829
of 294,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#29
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 294,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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.