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 |
Concentración y desigualdades en el financiamiento de las obras sociales posdesregulación: un análisis comparativo de los años 2004 y 2011
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Salud colectiva, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.18294/sc.2016.880 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
María Florencia Arnaudo, Fernando Lago, Nebel Moscoso, Ernesto Báscolo, Natalia Yavich |
| Abstract |
In Argentina, during the decade of the 1990s major changes were introduced into the regulatory framework of the national obras sociales, or union-based health coverage plans. Using data from the Federal Administration of Public Income (AFIP) [Administración Federal de Ingresos Públicos], this study evaluates for the years 2004 and 2011: a) the importance of obras sociales within the healthcare system, b) the degree of concentration of this health social security subsystem, and c) the inequalities in the availability of funds among the obras sociales and their beneficiaries. The results show an increased importance of obras sociales within the Argentine health system. The concentration of funds distributed to the most important institutions within the subsystem showed no change, while the concentration of contributors to these institutions slightly increased and that of beneficiaries decreased. Finally, a reduction of the inequalities in funds per beneficiary received by different institutions was observed. This trend can be explained, among other factors, by the attenuation of wage differentials between branches of economic activity and the actions of the so-called Solidarity Redistribution Fund. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 1 | 13% |
| Librarian | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 38% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
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 23 June 2016.
All research outputs
#19,947,956
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Salud colectiva
#208
of 265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,551
of 314,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Salud colectiva
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 265 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 314,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.