↓ Skip to main content

Uso, cuidado e política das práticas integrativas e complementares na Atenção Primária à Saúde

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Uso, cuidado e política das práticas integrativas e complementares na Atenção Primária à Saúde
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2015
DOI 10.1590/1413-812320152010.00312015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Octávio Augusto Contatore, Nelson Filice de Barros, Melissa Rossati Durval, Pedro Cristóvão Carneiro da Cunha Barrio, Bernardo Diniz Coutinho, Júlia Amorim Santos, Juliana Luporini do Nascimento, Silene de Lima Oliveira, Silvia Miguel de Paula Peres

Abstract

The use of Complementary and Integrative Practices (CIP) is on the increase and its institutionalization in Primary Health Care (PHC) is a challenge. This article discusses the use, care, and policies of CIP at international and national levels found in the indexed literature. A review of the literature in PubMed/Medline and the Virtual Health Library was conducted using the key search words "Homeopathy", "Acupuncture", "Herbal Medicine", "Body Practices", "Primary Health Care" and other related terms in English, Spanish and Portuguese between 2002 and 2011. The use in the literature of CIP for the treatment of specific diseases from a biomedical perspective was observed, as well as evaluations of its use for the treatment of specific diseases focused on the reaction of the users and professionals and the analysis of the political, economic and social viability of CIP in health services. The conclusion drawn is that what is predominant in the literature is the quest for the scientific validation of CIP and a biomedical methodological bias in the designs of the studies, which does not contribute to clarifying the potential care of CIP in PHC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 15 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 6%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 October 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#987
of 2,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,469
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#16
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,037 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 286,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 58% of its contemporaries.