Teleodontología: una definición por esclarecer. Revisión de la literatura

Teledentistry has experienced rapid adoption, revealing a lack of consensus in its definition and usage. Existing definitions provide insight into its applications but lack clarity regarding teledentistry’s conceptual framework, which limits its implementation in professional practice. Therefore, a literature search was conducted using the PubMed database and the Google web search engine to compile the available teledentistry definitions. In total, 63 definitions were found, encompassing e-health, telehealth, and telemedicine. Although most of them included teledentistry as part of telemedicine, the scopes expressed in their definitions reflect that teledentistry goes beyond patient care. Hence, it is necessary to delineate concepts and differentiate between e-health domains for a better understanding of the term.La teleodontología ha tenido una rápida adopción, lo que ha evidenciado una falta de consenso en su definición y uso del término. Las definiciones existentes permiten comprender sus aplicaciones, pero carecen de claridad en lo que respecta a su marco conceptual, lo que limita su implementación en el ejercicio profesional. Por ello, se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica en la base de datos de PubMed y en el buscador web de Google para recopilar las definiciones accesibles de la teleodontología, encontrándose 63 definiciones que la incluían dentro de los dominios de la e-salud, la telesalud y la telemedicina. Aunque la mayoría incluyó a la teleodontología dentro de la telemedicina, los alcances expresados en sus definiciones reflejan que esta no se limita a la atención propiamente del paciente, por lo que es necesario delimitar los conceptos y las diferencias entre los dominios de la salud electrónica para una mejor comprensión del término

Análisis de publicaciones y comentarios sobre la ivermectina en Facebook durante la pandemia del COVID-19 en Perú

This research was carried out with the objective of analyzing the posts and perceptions of users, through their comments, about the drug ivermectin on Facebook during the COVID-19 pandemic in Peru. The pots and their comments were selected by manual search using the terms: "ivermectina" and "#ivermectina" in July 2020. The analysis of posts and their comments was made by conventional content analysis with an inductive process and supported by scientific bibliography. There were 17 posts made between May 18 and July 7, 2020, and were classified into 5 topics: rumors (58.8%), based on scientific evidence (11.8%), precaution (11.8%), production of the drug (11.8%) and confrontation (5.9%). Surprisingly, 70.0% of the rumors were offered by media pages. Regarding the comments, these were classified identifying the perceptions of users towards ivermectin into four topics: ivermectin as an “effective cure” (64.8%), request for information on ivermectin (25.3%), against the consumption of ivermectin (6.3%) and other treatments (3.6%). In conclusion, it was identified that more than half of the information about ivermectin that circulates through Facebook posts was classified as “rumors”, and most of them were originates from media pages; regarding the analysis of the comments, the perception of users who consider ivermectin as the “effective cure” against COVID-19 stands out over other perceptions.Esta investigación se realizó con el objetivo de analizar las publicaciones y percepciones de los usuarios, a través de sus comentarios, sobre el fármaco ivermectina en Facebook durante la pandemia del COVID-19 en Perú. Las publicaciones y sus comentarios fueron seleccionados mediante búsqueda manual utilizando los términos: “ivermectina” y “#ivermectina” en julio del 2020. La interpretación de las publicaciones y sus comentarios se efectuó por análisis de contenido cualitativo convencional con proceso inductivo y apoyado por literatura científica. Se encontraron 17 publicaciones realizadas entre el 18 de mayo y 7 de julio del 2020, clasificándose en 5 temáticas: rumores (58,8%), basada en evidencia científica (11,8%), precaución (11,8%), producción del fármaco (11,8%) y confrontación (5,9%). Paradójicamente, el 70,0% de los rumores fueron ofrecidos por páginas de medios de comunicación. En cuanto a los comentarios, estos se clasificaron identificando las percepciones de los usuarios hacia la ivermectina en cuatro temas: ivermectina como “cura efectiva” (64,8%), solicitud de información sobre ivermectina (25,3%), en contra del consumo de ivermectina (6,3%) y otros tratamientos (3,6%). En conclusión, se identificó que más de la mitad de la información sobre ivermectina que circula mediante publicaciones en Facebook se clasifican como “rumores”, y en su mayoría son originadas por páginas de medios de comunicación; en cuanto al análisis de los comentarios se destaca la percepción de los usuarios que consideran a la ivermectina como la “cura efectiva” contra la COVID-19

Challenges of design, implementation, acceptability, and potential for, biomedical technologies in the Peruvian Amazon.

BACKGROUND: Biomedical technologies have the potential to be advantageous in remote communities. However, information about barriers faced by users of technology in general and in remote Indigenous communities is scarce. The purpose of this study was to characterize the leading challenges faced by researchers who have used biomedical technologies in the Peruvian Amazon. METHODS: This exploratory, qualitative study with a phenomenological approach depicts the lived experience of participants who were researchers with experience working with biomedical technologies in the Peruvian Amazon in the past five years. Analysis was based on three core themes: design, implementation, and acceptability. Sub-themes included environment, community, and culture. Of the 24 potential participants identified and contacted, 14 agreed to participate, and 13 met inclusion criteria and completed semi-structured interviews. Results were sent to each participant with the opportunity to provide feedback and partake in a 30-minute validation meeting. Five participants consented to a follow-up meeting to validate the results and provide further understanding. RESULTS: Participants recognized significant challenges, including technologies designed out-of-context, difficulty transporting the technologies through the Amazon, the impact of the physical environment (e.g., humidity, flooding), and limited existing infrastructure, such as electricity and appropriately trained health personnel. Participants also identified cultural factors, including the need to address past experiences with technology and health interventions, understand and appropriately communicate community benefits, and understand the effect of demographics (e.g., age, education) on the acceptance and uptake of technology. Complementary challenges, such as corruption in authority and waste disposal, and recommendations for technological and health interventions such as co-design were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes that technological and health interventions without efforts to respect local cultures and health priorities, or understand and anticipate contextual challenges, will not meet its goal of improving access to healthcare in remote Amazon communities. Furthermore, the implications of corruption on health services, and improper waste disposal on the environment may lead to more detrimental health inequities