↓ Skip to main content

Atenção à saúde de pessoas em situação de rua: estudo comparado de unidades móveis em Portugal, Estados Unidos e Brasil

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Atenção à saúde de pessoas em situação de rua: estudo comparado de unidades móveis em Portugal, Estados Unidos e Brasil
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, March 2017
DOI 10.1590/1413-81232017223.25822016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Igor da Costa Borysow, Eleonor Minho Conill, Juarez Pereira Furtado

Abstract

This paper describes and analyzes the legal and normative framework guiding the use of mobile units in Portugal, United States and Brazil, which seek to improve access and continuity of care for people in homelessness. We used a comparative analysis through literature and documentary review relating three categories: context (demographic, socio-economic and epidemiological), services system (access, coverage, organization, management and financing) and, specifically, mobile units (design, care and financing model). The analysis was based on the theory of convergence/divergence between health systems from the perspective of equity in health. Improving access, addressing psychoactive substances abuse, outreach and multidisciplinary work proved to be common to all three countries, with the potential to reduce inequities. Relationships with primary healthcare, use of vehicles and the type of financing are considered differently in the three countries, influencing the greater or lesser extent of equity in the analyzed proposals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 22 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 23 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 11 December 2022.
All research outputs
#7,377,862
of 25,591,967 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#628
of 2,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,623
of 324,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#4
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,591,967 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,055 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 324,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.