↓ Skip to main content

Experiências de perda dentária em usuários adultos e idosos da Atenção Primária à Saúde

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, January 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Experiências de perda dentária em usuários adultos e idosos da Atenção Primária à Saúde
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, January 2019
DOI 10.1590/1413-81232018241.09252017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Valentim Bitencourt, Helena Weschenfelder Corrêa, Ramona Fernanda Ceriotti Toassi

Abstract

From the theoretical perspective of phenomenology, this article seeks to understand the experiences of tooth loss in adult and elderly users of Primary Health Care in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul. Tooth loss was identified by the analysis of dental records of users that attended the oral health service at the Health Unit under study. Following this identification, individual household interviews were carried out. The sample was intentional. Data were interpreted by content analysis using the software ATLAS.ti (Visual Qualitative Data Analysis). The study had ethical approval. Losing teeth was an experience that expresses subjectivities, showing plural narratives and highlighting the social function of the mouth. Besides the number of missing teeth, the understanding of how people perceived themselves without their teeth determined how much tooth loss affected their lives. Wearing prostheses adds significance to individuals' perceptions of their body, restoring the balance between their body and the world. Qualitative approach studies in health services should be considered in order to plan interventions which prioritize people's individual needs in their own territories, thus reducing stigmas and social inequalities.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Professor 3 4%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 35 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 35%
Psychology 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 34 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 February 2019.
All research outputs
#6,600,606
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#355
of 2,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,734
of 446,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#12
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,037 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 71% 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 446,429 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.