↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Reference Centers for Special Immunobiologicals implementation

Overview of attention for article published in Revista de Saúde Pública, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Evaluation of Reference Centers for Special Immunobiologicals implementation
Published in
Revista de Saúde Pública, September 2016
DOI 10.1590/s1518-8787.2016050006183
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Andrade Lagôa Nóbrega, Hillegonda Maria Dutilh Novaes, Ana Marli Christovam Sartori

Abstract

To describe the Reference Centers for Special Immunobiologicals and evaluate their implementation considering formal regulations. We conducted a program evaluation, of evaluative research type. From August 2011 to January 2012, a questionnaire was applied to the 42 Reference Centers for Special Immunobiologicals existing in the Country, approaching the structure, human resources, and developed activities dimensions. We conducted a descriptive analysis of data and used a clustering for binary data with the squared Euclidean distance, by the farthest neighbor method, to aggregate services with similar features. We observed great diversity among the services in the three dimensions. The clustering resulted in five service profiles, named according to their characteristics. 1) Best structure: 12 Reference Centers for Special Immunobiologicals with the highest proportion of services with the minimum of rooms recommended, purpose-built vaccine refrigerators, preventive maintenance of the cold chain, and oxygen source. 2) Immunobiologicals distributor: six Reference Centers for Special Immunobiologicals that distributed more than applied immunogens; no doctor present for more than half of the working hours and no purpose-built vaccine refrigerators . 3) Incipient implementation: five Reference Centers for Special Immunobiologicals with inadequate structure, such as absence of purpose-built vaccine refrigerators, preventive maintenance of the cold chain and oxygen source; none had computer. 4) Vaccination rooms: 13 Reference Centers for Special Immunobiologicals, everyone did routine immunization, most participated in vaccination campaigns. 5) Teaching and research: six services, all inserted into teaching hospitals, developed researches and received trainees; most had doctors in more than half of the working hours. The evaluation of the Reference Centers for Special Immunobiologicals implementation was based on the profiles found and considered the official regulations: services categorized as "better structure" and "teaching and research" were considered implemented; "immunobiologicals distributor" and "vaccination room" services, partially implemented, and the ones with the "incipient implementation" profile, not implemented. The results of this evaluation can contribute to the reformulation of the services, considering the current context. Descrever os Centros de Referência para Imunobiológicos Especiais e avaliar sua implantação considerando as regulamentações formais. Foi realizada uma avaliação de programa, tipo pesquisa avaliativa. De agosto de 2011 a janeiro de 2012, foi aplicado questionário aos responsáveis pelos 42 Centros de Referência para Imunobiológicos Especiais existentes no País, abordando as dimensões estrutura, recursos humanos e atividades desenvolvidas. Foi feita análise descritiva dos dados e utilizado agrupamento para dados binários com uso da distância euclidiana quadrática, pelo método do vizinho mais distante, para agregar serviços com características semelhantes. Observou-se grande diversidade entre os serviços nas três dimensões. O agrupamento resultou em cinco perfis de serviços, denominados de acordo com suas características. 1) Melhor estrutura: 12 Centros de Referência para Imunobiológicos Especiais com a maior proporção de serviços com o mínimo de salas preconizado, câmaras de vacinas, manutenção preventiva da rede de frio e fonte de oxigênio. 2) Dispensador de imunobiológicos: seis Centros de Referência para Imunobiológicos Especiais que mais dispensavam do que aplicavam imunógenos; sem médico presente por mais da metade do expediente do serviço e sem câmara de vacinas. 3) Implantação incipiente: cinco Centros de Referência para Imunobiológicos Especiais com estrutura inadequada, como ausência de câmaras de vacinas, de manutenção preventiva da rede de frio e de fonte de oxigênio; nenhum possuía computador. 4) Sala de vacinas: 13 Centros de Referência para Imunobiológicos Especiais, todos faziam imunização de rotina, a maioria participava de campanhas de vacinação. 5) Ensino e pesquisa: seis serviços, todos inseridos em hospitais de ensino, desenvolviam pesquisas e recebiam estagiários; a maioria possuía médicos em mais da metade do expediente. A avaliação de implantação dos Centros de Referência para Imunobiológicos Especiais baseou-se nos perfis encontrados e considerou as regulamentações oficiais: os serviços categorizados como "melhor estrutura" e "ensino e pesquisa" foram considerados implantados; os serviços "dispensador de imunobiológicos" e "sala de vacinas", parcialmente implantados e os do perfil "implantação incipiente", não implantados. Os resultados dessa avaliação podem contribuir para a reformulação dos serviços, considerando o contexto atual.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 26%
Lecturer 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Engineering 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 12 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Saúde Pública
#601
of 1,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,483
of 348,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Saúde Pública
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,139 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 348,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.