↓ Skip to main content

Políticas públicas de humanização: revisão integrativa da literatura

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Políticas públicas de humanização: revisão integrativa da literatura
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2015
DOI 10.1590/1413-812320152010.10462014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Márcia Adriana Dias Meirelles Moreira, Abdon Moreira Lustosa, Fernando Dutra, Eveline de Oliveira Barros, Jaqueline Brito Vidal Batista, Marcella Costa Souto Duarte

Abstract

The study aimed to investigate the scientific literature on Public Humanization Policies, available in online periodicals, from 2009 to 2012, in the health field. This is an integrative literature review conducted in the Virtual Health Library databases: Latin-America and Caribbean Health Sciences (Lilacs) and the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) and Portal Capes. Data were collected in July 2013. To this end, the following Health Sciences Descriptors (DeCS) were used: "Humanization of Care," "Public Policies," "National Humanization Policy". The sample consisted of 27 articles about the investigated theme. From the publications selected for the research, three categories emerged according to their respective approaches: National Human-ization Policy: history and processes involved in its implementation; National Humanization Policy: health professionals contribution; Humanization and in the care process. The study showed that the National Humanization Policy is an important benchmark in the development of health practices. For this reason, there is a pressing multiplication of related reflections on ways to promote human-ization in health services.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Researcher 4 11%
Lecturer 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Materials Science 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 27%

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 16 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#1,373
of 1,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,662
of 274,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#23
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,859 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 274,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.