↓ Skip to main content

The First National Survey of Indigenous People’s Health and Nutrition in Brazil: rationale, methodology, and overview of results

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
142 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
305 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
The First National Survey of Indigenous People’s Health and Nutrition in Brazil: rationale, methodology, and overview of results
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-13-52
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos EA Coimbra, Ricardo Ventura Santos, James R Welch, Andrey Moreira Cardoso, Mirian Carvalho de Souza, Luiza Garnelo, Elias Rassi, Maj-Lis Follér, Bernardo L Horta

Abstract

Although case studies indicate that indigenous peoples in Brazil often suffer from higher morbidity and mortality rates than the national population, they were not included systematically in any previous national health survey. Reported here for the first time, the First National Survey of Indigenous People's Health and Nutrition in Brazil was conducted in 2008-2009 to obtain baseline information based on a nationwide representative sample. This paper presents the study's rationale, design and methods, and selected results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters 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 305 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 1%
Indonesia 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 295 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 21%
Student > Bachelor 37 12%
Researcher 31 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 8%
Other 66 22%
Unknown 54 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 16%
Social Sciences 42 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 6%
Other 43 14%
Unknown 64 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 08 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,993,950
of 21,078,563 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,287
of 13,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,994
of 279,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,078,563 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 279,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.