↓ Skip to main content

Evaluación de un circuito de apoyo a profesionales sanitarios confinados por COVID-19

Overview of attention for article published in Revista de Saúde Pública, December 2021
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Evaluación de un circuito de apoyo a profesionales sanitarios confinados por COVID-19
Published in
Revista de Saúde Pública, December 2021
DOI 10.11606/s1518-8787.2021055003735
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosa García-Sierra, Eduard Moreno-Gabriel, Esther Badia Perich, Victòria Sabaté Cintas, Josep M. Bonet Simó, Concepción Fors Violán, Nuria Prat Gil, Mònica Piña Rodríguez, Pere Torán-Monserrat

Abstract

To evaluate the implementation of a telephone system in a department of Primary Care in Barcelona, Spain, supporting health professionals confined by COVID-19. We conducted an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study with confined professionals, between March 11 and May 31, 2020. We emailed a questionnaire with 18 closed-ended questions and one open-ended question and performed a descriptive analysis of the closed-ended answers and an analysis of the thematic content of the open-ended question. Thirty-nine hundred and ninety-eight professionals evaluated the system overall with a score of 6.54 on a scale of 1 to 10. The evaluation of the format of calls made in the support system had higher scores, while the psychological support unit and the coordination of the different groups had lower scores. The content analysis of the open-ended question provides explanatory arguments for the quantitative results. The study allowed a valid and reliable evaluation of the implementation of a support system for confined professionals, in addition to recognizing areas for improvement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 42%
Librarian 2 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 17%

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 24 January 2022.
All research outputs
#19,203,675
of 21,578,868 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Saúde Pública
#626
of 626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#322,561
of 393,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Saúde Pública
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,578,868 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 626 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 393,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.