| Title |
How do demographic transitions and public health policies affect patients with Parkinson’s disease in Brazil?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s123029 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tânia M Bovolenta, Andre C Felicio |
| Abstract |
Brazil is currently experiencing a significant demographic transition characterized by a decrease in fertility rates and an exponential increase in the number of elderly citizens, which presents a special challenge for the health care professionals. More than other portions of the population, the elderly are most commonly affected by chronic diseases such as Parkinson's disease. Policymakers contend that Brazil is reasonably well-prepared regarding elderly health care, with policies that aim to ensure the quality of life and the well-being of this portion of the population. However, what happens in practice falls short of what the Brazilian Constitution sets forth. Specifically, there is a clear contradiction between what the law recognizes as being a citizen's rights and the implementation of guidelines. Because health financing in Brazil remains relatively low, the civil society tries to fill in the gaps as much as possible in the treatment of elderly patients suffering from chronic diseases such as Parkinson's disease. In this review, we outline the current legislation in Brazil regarding the elderly and in particular, patients with Parkinson's disease, in the context of a rapidly aging population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 33% |
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 30% |
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 20 February 2017.
All research outputs
#16,581,410
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,175
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,186
of 421,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#32
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 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 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 421,675 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 39 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.