↓ Skip to main content

Netnografia e análise bioética de blogs de turismo terapêutico com células-tronco

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Netnografia e análise bioética de blogs de turismo terapêutico com células-tronco
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2016
DOI 10.1590/1413-812320152110.16422016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natan Monsores, Cecilia Lopes, Edilnete Maria Bessa Bezerra, Natasha Lunara Silva

Abstract

Therapeutic tourism is a recent phenomenon in public health and has had repercussions among people with disabilities. Virtual social networks have enabled people to organize themselves to discover ways and means of seeking unconventional treatments in China. In this context, foreign biotech companies have offered experimental cell treatment therapies. In this work, netnography (conducting ethnographic research online) was conducted on the blogs of 58 people who organized campaigns to carry out treatment in China. In the analysis it was found that the main motivation for mobilization of resources and people in order to submit a disabled child to a treatment with stem cells without scientific proof is the rhetoric of hope promoted by stem cell laboratories. The conclusion drawn is that due to the ethical, legal and health implications, debate on the subject should be broadened in order to protect vulnerable individuals against inadvertent exposure to health risks due to treatments without proven control or rigor.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 15%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 8 30%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,279,283
of 12,612,351 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#171
of 696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,011
of 286,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,612,351 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 696 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 286,099 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 68% of its contemporaries.