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 |
Visión comprensiva y crítica de los modelos conceptuales sobre acceso a servicios de salud, 1970-2013
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0102-311x00111415 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcela Arrivillaga, Yadira Eugenia Borrero |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to critically analyze various conceptual models on access to health services described in the literature from 1970 to 2013. A systematic review was conducted on applied and theoretical research publications that explicitly conceptualized access to health services. The review included 25 articles that met the study's objectives. The analysis used a matrix containing the conceptual model's logic and its description. Access to health services was classified in five categories: (i) decent minimums, (ii) market-driven, (iii) factors and multicausality, (iv) needs-based, and (v) social justice and the right to health. The study concludes that the predominant concept of access in the literature has been the market logic of medical care services, linked to the logic of factors and multicausality. Meanwhile, no conceptual model was found for access to health services based explicitly on social justice and the right to health. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 3 | 75% |
| Italy | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 28 | 58% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 27 | 56% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,915,133
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#757
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,704
of 342,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#16
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
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 342,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 54% of its contemporaries.