↓ Skip to main content

Caminhos possíveis para a avaliação das práticas da Vigilância em Saúde

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Caminhos possíveis para a avaliação das práticas da Vigilância em Saúde
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2017
DOI 10.1590/1413-812320172210.17752017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Filomena de Gouveia Vilela, Dario Nunes dos Santos, Brigina Kemp

Abstract

This is an evaluative and qualitative study that proposes to investigate self-assessment evaluation as a device to analyze Health Surveillance practices through a questionnaire built by researchers, adapted from the Self-Assessment of Improved Access and Primary Care Quality (AMAQ) and available on the FORMSUS platform. Forty-one Health Surveillance workers and managers of a large municipality from São Paulo State evaluated the realms of "management", "teamwork" and their respective sub-realms. Two categories were created to analyze the results: "Management" and "Team" in dialogue with references from Management, Evaluation and Health Surveillance. Most "management" and "teamwork" sub-realms were deemed satisfactory. Self-assessment evaluation through an applied evaluation tool was shown to be a powerful resource for the analysis of Health Surveillance practices in combination with other devices adopted by the Unified Health System (SUS). Unlike usual evaluation processes guided by quantitative markers, this self-assessable evaluative process included subjects and enabled the possibility of incorporating a new look at itself to the way Health Surveillance is carried out and support future management contracts between workers and managers.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 6 35%
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 28 October 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#1,775
of 2,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,092
of 331,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#30
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 331,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.