Face-to-Face and distance education modalities in the training of healthcare professionals: A quasi-experimental study

This study evaluates the effectiveness of an 18-month-long course in Family Health. The course was offered in two modalities, distance education and face-to-face learning. Dependent variables were as follows: self-regulation of learning, procrastination, the perception of self-efficacy, and academic performance. The course was attended by 27 health professionals (i.e., physicians, nurses, and dentists) working in the Brazilian Unified Health System. The investigation followed a quasi-experimental design. Participants in the two modalities achieved similar academic performance; and globally no statistically significant differences were found regarding the study variables. Findings, notwithstanding their importance for professional training in health, are preliminary and further research is needed on the effectiveness of training modalities distance education and face-to-face learning (e.g., focus groups, interviews, online monitoring). The educational implications of this study are discussed and analyzed considering specificities and differences of each modality.We wish to thank the clinical psychologist Ana Carolina Faedrich dos Santos (Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre), for the help on the statistical analysis. We thank for Open University of the Unified Health System (UNASUS), Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), and Institute of Research and Education (HMV) for the promotion course in Family Health offered in modalities distance education and face-to-face learning. We also thank CAPES for the support of the Pro-Health Education Project, Project 39, with daily funding for collection and participation in an event during the research

Quality and effectiveness of different approaches to primary care delivery in Brazil

BACKGROUND: Since 1994, Brazil has developed a primary care system based on multidisciplinary teams which include not only a physician and a nurse, but also 4–6 lay community health workers. This system now consists of 26,650 teams, covering 46% of the Brazilian population. Yet relatively few investigations have examined its effectiveness, especially in contrast with that of the traditional multi-specialty physician team approach it is replacing, or that of other existing family medicine approaches placing less emphasis on lay community health workers. Primary health care can be defined through its domains of access to first contact, continuity, coordination, comprehensiveness, community orientation and family orientation. These attributes can be ascertained via instruments such as the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCATool), and correlated with the effectiveness of care. The objectives of our study are to validate the adult version of this instrument in Portuguese, identify the extent (quality) of primary care present in different models of primary care services, and correlate this extent with measures of process and outcomes in patients with diabetes, hypertension and coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS/DESIGN: We are conducting a population-based cross-sectional study of primary care in the municipality of Porto Alegre. We will interview a random sample totaling 3000 adults residing in geographic areas covered by four distinct models of primary care of the Brazilian national health system or, alternatively, by one nationally prominent complementary health care service, as well as the physicians and nurses of the health teams of these services. Interviews query perceived quality of care (PCATool-Adult Version), patient satisfaction, and process indicators of management of diabetes, hypertension and known CHD. We are measuring blood pressure, anthropometrics and, in adults with known diabetes, glycated hemoglobin. DISCUSSION: We hope to contribute not only by validating the PCATool-Adult Version for use in Brazil, but also by furnishing ample data concerning the appropriate mix of health care professionals in the primary care team, a question of international import. Once validated, future use of this instrument should help direct advances aiming at improving the quality of primary care in Brazil

Prevalence of hepatitis A in the capitals of the States of North, Southeast and South regions of Brazil: decrease in prevalence and some consequences

Hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection has been considered one of the leading causes of acute hepatitis. The aim of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of HAV among children and adolescents in a population-based study in the capitals of the States of the North, Southeast and South of Brazil and identify predictive factors for the infection. A multi-stage sampling was used to select subjects aged between 5-9 and 10-19 years. Individual and household levels aside from the level of variables in the areas were collected. The outcome was the total IgG antibodies to HAV levels detected using a commercial Enzyme Immuno Assay (EIA). The associations between HAV and the independent variables were assessed using the odds ratio. A multilevel analysis was performed by GLLAMM using the Stata software. The prevalence of HAV infection in the 5-9 and 10-19 age groups was 28.7% and 67.5%, respectively for the North, 20.6% and 37.7%, for the Southeast and 18.9% and 34.5% for the South Region. The prevalence of HAV increased according to age in all sites. Variables related to education at the individual level (North and South), family and area level (South and Southeast) and family income level (Southeast and South) were independently associated with HAV infection. This emphasizes the need for individualized strategies to prevent the infection

GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence

Objectives: The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process. Study Design and Setting: Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists. Results: We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings. Conclusion: The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health

Considering health equity when moving from evidence-based guideline recommendations to implementation: a case study from an upper-middle income country on the GRADE approach

The availability of evidence-based guidelines does not ensure their implementation and use in clinical practice or policy making. Inequities in health have been defined as those inequalities within or between populations that are avoidable, unnecessary and also unjust and unfair. Evidence-based clinical practice and public health guidelines (‘guidelines’) can be used to target health inequities experienced by disadvantaged populations, although guidelines may unintentionally increase health inequities. For this reason, there is a need for evidence-based clinical practice and public health guidelines to intentionally target health inequities experienced by disadvantaged VC The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 1484 Health Policy and Planning, 32, 2017, 1484–1490 doi: 10.1093/heapol/czx126 Advance Access Publication Date: 3 October 2017 Methodological Musings Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/heapol/article/32/10/1484/4318813 by BLS - The Librarian user on 12 February 2023 populations. Current guideline development processes do not include steps for planned implementation of equity-focused guidelines. This article describes nine steps that provide guidance for consideration of equity during guideline implementation. A critical appraisal of the literature followed by a process to build expert consensus was undertaken to define how to include consideration of equity issues during the specific GRADE guideline development process. Using a case study from Colombia we describe nine steps that were used to implement equity-focused GRADE recommendations: (1) identification of disadvantaged groups, (2) quantification of current health inequities, (3) development of equity-sensitive recommendations, (4) identification of key actors for implementation of equity-focused recommendations, (5) identification of barriers and facilitators to the implementation of equity-focused recommendations, (6) development of an equity strategy to be included in the implementation plan, (7) assessment of resources and incentives, (8) development of a communication strategy to support an equity focus and (9) development of monitoring and evaluation strategies. This case study can be used as model for implementing clinical practice guidelines, taking into account equity issues during guideline development and implementation