↓ Skip to main content

À margem: uso de crack, desvio, criminalização e exclusão social – uma revisão narrativa

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
À margem: uso de crack, desvio, criminalização e exclusão social – uma revisão narrativa
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, January 2017
DOI 10.1590/1413-81232017221.02852016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lidiane Toledo, Andrés Góngora, Francisco Inácio P. M. Bastos

Abstract

The article comprises a narrative review of the scientific literature, aiming to identify and discuss the contexts of vulnerability and social exclusion faced by users of crack cocaine and other substances who live on the sidelines of society in the Brazilian and international context. The paper summarizes insights from different theoretical frameworks, focusing on an integrated perspective of substance use and abuse, with an emphasis on the use of crack and its inter-relationships with social vulnerability, marginalization, social exclusion and deviation. In a first step, broad aspects of qualitative research on drugs are outlined. The subsequent section highlights issues associated with exclusion and social vulnerability of crack users, followed by an assessment of the main associations mentioned in the literature on drug use and criminal involvement. Finally, the concept of "sidelines of society" is discussed, as exemplified by situations and events experienced by users of crack and other substances, as mentioned in the literature.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 31%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Professor 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 12%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Psychology 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 23%

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 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#7,074,986
of 12,536,156 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#159
of 505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,506
of 216,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,536,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 505 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 216,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them