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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Prevalence and risk factors for intestinal protozoa infection in elderly residents at Long Term Residency Institutions in Southeastern Brazil
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s0036-46652013000100004 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katymilla Guimarães Girotto, Daliane Faria Grama, Maria Júlia Rodrigues da Cunha, Elaine Silva Marques Faria, Jean Ezequiel Limongi, Rogério de Melo Costa Pinto, Márcia Cristina Cury |
| Abstract |
This study determined the prevalence of intestinal protozoa in Long Term Residency Institutions for the Elderly (ILPI) in elders, nurses and food handlers, identifying the risk factors associated with the infections. Stool samples taken from the elderly (n = 293), nurses (63) and food handlers (19) were studied. Questionnaires were used with questions related to sociodemographic variables, health, behavior and health characteristics. Stool samples were examined using the techniques of Faust and Ziehl Neelsen, and the prevalence of G. duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., E. histolytica/dispar in the elderly was 4.0%, 1.0% and 0.3% respectively. Nurses and food handlers showed 4.8% and 5.2% positivity only for G. duodenalis, respectively. The origin of the individuals and contact with domestic animals has been associated with infection by G. duodenalis in the elderly, and contact with domestic animals was considered a risk factor for infection. The last stool examinations were related to Cryptosporidium spp.. None of the variables were associated with E. histolytica/dispar. The frequency of hand washing was significantly associated with G. duodenalis among nurses. The frequency of positive samples of G. duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., E. histolytica/dispar showed that ILPIs environments are conducive to this occurring due to contact between the elderly, nurses and food handlers, which are often poorly trained in hygiene procedures and food handling. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 86% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 86% |
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 30 January 2013.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo
#565
of 785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,859
of 291,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo
#10
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 785 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 291,228 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.