↓ Skip to main content

Desigualdades em Saúde: uma perspectiva global

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
304 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
Desigualdades em Saúde: uma perspectiva global
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, July 2017
DOI 10.1590/1413-81232017227.02742017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mauricio Lima Barreto

Abstract

The objective of this article is to present health inequalities as a global problem which afflicts the populations of the poorest countries, but also those of the richest countries, and whose persistence represents one of the most serious and challenging health problems worldwide. Two components of global inequalities are highlighted: inequalities between groups within the same society, and inequalities between nations. The understanding that many of these inequalities are unjust, and therefore inequities, is largely derived from the inequalities that are identified between the various social groups of a given society. Inequalities between different societies and nations, while relevant and often of greater magnitude, are not always considered to be unjust. There have been several proposed solutions, which vary according to different theoretical interpretations and explanations. At the global level, the most plausible thesis has focused on improving global governance mechanisms. While that latter are attractive and have some arguments in their favor, they are insufficient because they do not incorporate an understanding of how the historical process of the constitution of the nations occurred and the importance of the position of each country in the global productive system.

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 304 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 304 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 16%
Student > Bachelor 41 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Student > Postgraduate 17 6%
Other 39 13%
Unknown 113 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 13%
Social Sciences 26 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 4%
Psychology 7 2%
Other 44 14%
Unknown 124 41%

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 26 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,345,259
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#1,363
of 1,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,773
of 314,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#19
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,901 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 314,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.