↓ Skip to main content

The practice of intensive care in Latin America: a survey of academic intensivists

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
67 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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 practice of intensive care in Latin America: a survey of academic intensivists
Published in
Critical Care, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-1956-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo Castro, Nicolas Nin, Fernando Ríos, Leyla Alegría, Elisa Estenssoro, Gastón Murias, Gilberto Friedman, Manuel Jibaja, Gustavo Ospina-Tascon, Javier Hurtado, María del Carmen Marín, Flavia R. Machado, Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti, Arnaldo Dubin, Luciano Azevedo, Maurizio Cecconi, Jan Bakker, Glenn Hernandez, On behalf of the Latin-American Intensive Care Network - LIVEN (www.redliven.org)

Abstract

Intensive care medicine is a relatively young discipline that has rapidly grown into a full-fledged medical subspecialty. Intensivists are responsible for managing an ever-increasing number of patients with complex, life-threatening diseases. Several factors may influence their performance, including age, training, experience, workload, and socioeconomic context. The aim of this study was to examine individual- and work-related aspects of the Latin American intensivist workforce, mainly with academic appointments, which might influence the quality of care provided. In consequence, we conducted a cross-sectional study of intensivists at public and private academic and nonacademic Latin American intensive care units (ICUs) through a web-based electronic survey submitted by email. Questions about personal aspects, work-related topics, and general clinical workflow were incorporated. Our study comprised 735 survey respondents (53% return rate) with the following country-specific breakdown: Brazil (29%); Argentina (19%); Chile (17%); Uruguay (12%); Ecuador (9%); Mexico (7%); Colombia (5%); and Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala, and Paraguay combined (2%). Latin American intensivists were predominantly male (68%) young adults (median age, 40 [IQR, 35-48] years) with a median clinical ICU experience of 10 (IQR, 5-20) years. The median weekly workload was 60 (IQR, 47-70) h. ICU formal training was between 2 and 4 years. Only 63% of academic ICUs performed multidisciplinary rounds. Most intensivists (85%) reported adequate conditions to manage patients with septic shock in their units. Unsatisfactory conditions were attributed to insufficient technology (11%), laboratory support (5%), imaging resources (5%), and drug shortages (5%). Seventy percent of intensivists participated in research, and 54% read scientific studies regularly, whereas 32% read no more than one scientific study per month. Research grants and pharmaceutical sponsorship are unusual funding sources in Latin America. Although Latin American intensivists are mostly unsatisfied with their income (81%), only a minority (27%) considered changing to another specialty before retirement. Latin American intensivists constitute a predominantly young adult workforce, mostly formally trained, have a high workload, and most are interested in research. They are under important limitations owing to resource constraints and overt dissatisfaction. Latin America may be representative of other world areas with similar challenges for intensivists. Specific initiatives aimed at addressing these situations need to be devised to improve the quality of critical care delivery in Latin America.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 9 8%
Other 34 29%
Unknown 29 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 39 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 19 February 2020.
All research outputs
#943,983
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#723
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,273
of 344,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#27
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 344,362 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 67% of its contemporaries.