↓ 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
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Social Sciences 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 11 20%

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
#8,141,345
of 14,156,319 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#203
of 741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,306
of 265,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#6
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,156,319 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 741 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 265,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 63% of its contemporaries.