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 |
Registro e incorporação de tecnologias no SUS: barreiras de acesso a medicamentos para doenças da pobreza?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1413-81232017225.32762016 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rafael Santos Santana, Evandro de Oliveira Lupatini, Silvana Nair Leite |
| Abstract |
The study aimed to examine the regulation and adoption of health technologies for the diseases of poverty in the Brazil's Unified Health System (SUS). An exploratory, descriptive study was conducted between January and May 2016 consisting of the search and analysis of relevant documents on the websites of Brazil's National Health Surveillance Agency, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the National Commission for the Adoption of Technologies by the SUS, and Saúde Legis (the Ministry of Health's Legislation System). The 2014 version of the Brazilian National List of Essential Medicines (RENAME, acronym in Portuguese) contained 132 medicines for diseases of poverty. Over one-third of these (49) had only one national producer, while 24 were not registered in the country. The number of medicines contained in the RENAME dedicated to this group of diseases increased by 46% between 2006 and 2014. Despite advances in the regulation and incorporation of technologies by the SUS, given the lack of market interest and neglect of diseases of poverty, the government has a vital role to play in ensuring access to the best available therapies in order to reduce health inequalities. It therefore follows that Brazil needs to improve the regulation of medicines that do not attract market interest. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 26 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 16 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 27 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,760,997
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#101
of 2,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,373
of 324,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#1
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,035 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 324,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.