↓ Skip to main content

Instrumentos, estratégias e método de abordagem qualitativa sobre tentativas e ideações suicidas de pessoas idosas

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Instrumentos, estratégias e método de abordagem qualitativa sobre tentativas e ideações suicidas de pessoas idosas
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, June 2015
DOI 10.1590/1413-81232015206.03022015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fátima Gonçalves Cavalcante, Maria Cecília de Souza Minayo, Denise Machado Duran Gutierrez, Girliani Silva de Sousa, Raimunda Magalhães da Silva, Rosylaine Moura, Stela Nazareth Meneghel, Sonia Grubits, Marta Conte, Ana Célia Sousa Cavalcante, Ana Elisa Bastos Figueiredo, Raimunda Matilde do Nascimento Mangas, María Cristina Heuguerot Fachola, Giovane Mendieta Izquierdo

Abstract

The article analyses the quality and consistency of a comprehensive interview guide, adapted to study attempted suicide and its ideation among the elderly, and imparts the method followed in applying this tool. The objective is to show how the use of a semi-structured interview and the organization and data analysis set-up were tested and perfected by a network of researchers from twelve universities or research centers in Brazil, Uruguay and Colombia. The method involved application and evaluation of the tool and joint production of an instruction manual on data collection, systematization and analysis. The methodology was followed in 67 interviews with elderly people of 60 or older and in 34 interviews with health professionals in thirteen Brazilian municipalities and in Montevideo and Bogotá, allowing the consistency of the tool and the applicability of the method to be checked, during the process and at the end. The enhanced guide and the instructions for reproducing it are presented herein. The results indicate the suitability and credibility of this methodological approach, tested and certified in interdisciplinary and interinstitutional terms.

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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 10 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 18%
Philosophy 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 10 36%
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 22 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#1,121
of 2,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,503
of 281,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#21
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,034 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 281,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.