↓ Skip to main content

Avaliação da organização e funcionamento das salas de vacina na Atenção Primária à Saúde em Montes Claros, Minas Gerais, 2015

Overview of attention for article published in Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Avaliação da organização e funcionamento das salas de vacina na Atenção Primária à Saúde em Montes Claros, Minas Gerais, 2015
Published in
Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde, January 2017
DOI 10.5123/s1679-49742017000300013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leila das Graças Siqueira, Andréa Maria Eleutério de Barros Lima Martins, Cláudia Mendes Campos Versiani, Lyllian Aparecida Vieira Almeida, Claudemilson da Silva Oliveira, Jairo Evangelista Nascimento, Bárbara Paloma Almeida Alecrim, Rafaela Caetano Bezerra

Abstract

to assess the quality of the organization and operation of vaccine rooms in Montes Claros, Minas Gerais, Brazil, in 2015. descriptive evaluation study on the quality of vaccine rooms, based on the technical guidelines and standards recommended by the National Immunization Program, using a questionnaire adapted from the Evaluation Program of the Vaccine Room Supervision Tool (PAISSV 2.0). all 18 vaccine rooms in the municipality were assessed; regarding the quality concept of the vaccine rooms, six of them were considered ideal, five good, four regular, and three as insufficient. most vaccine rooms were classified as good/ideal; however, there is a need to organize continuous education programs for professionals and structural improvements, in order to meet the standards recommended by the National Immunization Program.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 21%
Student > Master 5 15%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 26%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 11 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde
#246
of 411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#304,538
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 411 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 421,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.