↓ Skip to main content

Discursos interpretativos y prcticas deliberativas: Propuesta metodolgica para formulacin de polticas pblicas sanitarias en Colombia

Overview of attention for article published in Revista de Salud Pública, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Discursos interpretativos y prcticas deliberativas: Propuesta metodolgica para formulacin de polticas pblicas sanitarias en Colombia
Published in
Revista de Salud Pública, May 2017
DOI 10.15446/rsap.v19n3.67269
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jesús A Ortega-Bolaños, Margarita I Alba-Muñoz

Abstract

To propose public health policies in local governance scenarios through community participation; this requires recognizing the interaction of all social actors through argumentative approaches. Considering a critical hermeneutic approach, an argumentative rhetorical method was used to conduct a political formulation from a socio-centric scenario, based on a dialogue of knowledge between the community and local institutions, which allowed to identify and understand relevant social problems in health, related with early childhood and family. A comprehensive public policy was built in accordance with existing social health programs to intervene aspects referring to early childhood, childhood, adolescence and family. Solutions and their implementation arise from a participatory nucleus that reconciles institutional political interests and social needs of the local community. The argumentative approach in public policies recognizes the dialectical nucleus of politics by bringing the community closer to government entities through active citizen participation in processes of identification, implementation and execution of social policies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 27%
Unspecified 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 5 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
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 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,376,384
of 25,498,750 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Salud Pública
#6
of 9 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,020
of 324,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Salud Pública
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,498,750 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one scored the same or higher as 3 of them.
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 324,855 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them