↓ Skip to main content

O processo de regionalização do SUS: revisão sistemática

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
O processo de regionalização do SUS: revisão sistemática
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, April 2017
DOI 10.1590/1413-81232017224.26522016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guilherme Arantes Mello, Ana Paula Chancharulo de Morais Pereira, Liza Yurie Teruya Uchimura, Fabíola Lana Iozzi, Marcelo Marcos Piva Demarzo, Ana Luiza d’Ávila Viana

Abstract

This review focuses only on specific studies into the SUS regionalization process, which were based on empirical results and published since 2006, when the SUS was already under the aegis of the Pact for Health framework. It was found that the regionalization process is now underway in all spheres of government, subject to a set of challenges common to the different realities of the country. These include, primarily, that committee-structured entities are valued as spaces for innovation, yet also strive to overcome the bureaucratic and clientelist political culture. Regional governance is further hampered by the fragmentation of the system and, in particular, by the historical deficiency in planning, from the local level to the strategic policies for technology incorporation. The analyses enabled the identification of a culture of broad privilege for political negotiation, to the detriment of planning, as one of the main factors responsible for a vicious circle that sustains technical deficiency in management.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 28 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Social Sciences 10 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 29 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#16,051,091
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#987
of 2,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,119
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#15
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,035 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 323,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.