↓ Skip to main content

Photovoice como modo de escuta: subsídios para a promoção da equidade

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Photovoice como modo de escuta: subsídios para a promoção da equidade
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, December 2017
DOI 10.1590/1413-812320172212.25022017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maíra Ferro de Sousa Touso, Amado Batista Mainegra, Carlos Henrique Gomes Martins, Glória Lúcia Alves Figueiredo

Abstract

Health Promotion observations of patients from a Rehabilitation Center in rural São Paulo evidenced that these people faced difficulties in dealing with their physical limitations when these prevented them from working. This study aimed to broaden listening methods to facilitate dialogue with people in situations of physical frailty and removal from their work activities, using Photovoice, a participatory research-action method, as a tool and Health Promotion's theoretical framework. Images captured and reports that accompanied them consisted of the material of this study. Two thematic categories stood out: the expert decision; and physical condition: vanity, power and hope. Labor activity is perceived as a determinant of individuals' introduction in their environment and defines their role in the family and in the social field. Faced with disability, they feel deprived of their identity, vulnerable and without future prospects of social reintegration, an individual and familiar misfit process, but without social visibility and with negative consequences for global health is observed. Photovoice proved to be effective in apprehending perceptions and stimulating debate, providing essential inputs to promote equity in socially disadvantaged groups.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Professor 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 9 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 5 17%
Psychology 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 9 30%
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 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#1,461
of 2,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#320,527
of 444,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#21
of 27 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 2,037 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 444,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.