Subjectivity and Sexuality Production in Women Living With HIV/Aids: a Sociopoetic Production

The study aims to apprehend the subjectivity production possibilities concerning sexuality in a group of women living with HIV/aids, based on the sociopoetic method. The subjects were nine women with HIV/aids attended at the public referral hospital for infectious diseases in Fortaleza-CE. The results appoint that sexuality appears in several dimensions: in the sexual act, in knowing their own body, in professional accomplishment, in feelings of desire and love, besides the feeling of freedom. We concluded that sexuality is present in the individual's totality; it is not limited to the sexual act, but goes much further and is characterized as a dynamic realityEl objetivo de este estudio fue aprender las posibilidades de producción de subjetividad acerca de la sexualidad en un grupo de mujeres viviendo con el HIV/SIDA, a partir del método de la socio-poética. Los sujetos fueron nueve mujeres con HIV/SIDA asistidas en un hospital público de referencia para enfermedades infecciosas de Fortaleza, CE. Los resultados apuntan que la sexualidad aparece en varias dimensiones: en el acto sexual, en el conocer el propio cuerpo, en la realización profesional, en los sentimientos de deseo y amor, además del sentimiento de libertad. Se concluye que la sexualidad se encuentra en la totalidad del individuo, ella no se limita al acto sexual, va mucho más allá y se configura como realidad dinámica.O objetivo deste estudo foi apreender as possibilidades de produção de subjetividade acerca da sexualidade em um grupo de mulheres vivendo com o HIV/AIDS, a partir do método da sociopoética. Os sujeitos foram nove mulheres com HIV/AIDS assistidas no hospital público de referência para doenças infecciosas de Fortaleza, CE. Os resultados apontam que a sexualidade aparece em várias dimensões: no ato sexual, no conhecer o próprio corpo, na realização profissional, nos sentimentos de desejo e amor, além do sentimento de liberdade. Conclui-se que a sexualidade se encontra na totalidade do indivíduo, ela não se limita à questão do ato sexual, vai muito mais além e se configura como realidade dinâmica

Determinants of intensive insulin therapeutic regimens in patients with type 1 diabetes: data from a nationwide multicenter survey in Brazil

Background: To evaluate the determinants of intensive insulin regimens (ITs) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).Methods: This multicenter study was conducted between December 2008 and December 2010 in 28 public clinics in 20 Brazilian cities. Data were obtained from 3,591 patients (56.0% female, 57.1% Caucasian). Insulin regimens were classified as follows: group 1, conventional therapy (CT) (intermediate human insulin, one to two injections daily); group 2 (three or more insulin injections of intermediate plus regular human insulin); group 3 (three or more insulin injections of intermediate human insulin plus short-acting insulin analogues); group 4, basal-bolus (one or two insulin injections of long-acting plus short-acting insulin analogues or regular insulin); and group 5, basal-bolus with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Groups 2 to 5 were considered IT groups.Results: We obtained complete data from 2,961 patients. Combined intermediate plus regular human insulin was the most used therapeutic regimen. CSII was used by 37 (1.2%) patients and IT by 2,669 (90.2%) patients. More patients on IT performed self-monitoring of blood glucose and were treated at the tertiary care level compared to CT patients (p < 0.001). the majority of patients from all groups had HbA1c levels above the target. Overweight or obesity was not associated with insulin regimen. Logistic regression analysis showed that economic status, age, ethnicity, and level of care were associated with IT (p < 0.001).Conclusions: Given the prevalence of intensive treatment for T1D in Brazil, more effective therapeutic strategies are needed for long term-health benefits.Farmanguinhos/Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz/National Health MinistryBrazilian Diabetes SocietyFundacao do Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Univ Estado Rio de Janeiro, Unit Diabet, BR-20551030 Rio de Janeiro, BrazilBaurus Diabet Assoc, São Paulo, BrazilFed Univ São Paulo State, Diabet Unit, São Paulo, BrazilFed Univ Hosp Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, BrazilUniv Hosp São Paulo, Diabet Unit, São Paulo, BrazilUniv Fed Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilUniv Fed Ceara, Fortaleza, Ceara, BrazilSanta Casa Misericordia, Belo Horizonte, MG, BrazilSanta Casa Misericordia São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilUniv Fed Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, BrazilHosp Geral de Bonsucesso, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilHosp Univ Clementino Fraga Filho IPPMG, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilUniv Hosp São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilFac Ciencias Med Santa Casa São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilUniv São Paulo, Inst Crianca, Hosp Clin, São Paulo, BrazilUniv São Paulo, Fac Med Ribeirao Preto, Hosp Clin, Ribeirao Preto, BrazilAmbulatorio Fac Estadual Med Sao Jose Rio Preto, Ribeirao Preto, BrazilEscola Paulista Med, Ctr Diabet, Ribeirao Preto, BrazilClin Endocrinol Santa Casa Belo Horizonte, Belo Horizonte, MG, BrazilUniv Estadual Londrina, Londrina, BrazilUniv Fed Parana, Hosp Clin, Porto Alegre, RS, BrazilInst Crianca Com Diabet Rio Grande Sul, Rio Grande Do Sul, RS, BrazilGrp Hosp Conceicao, Inst Crianca Com Diabet, Porto Alegre, RS, BrazilHosp Univ Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, SC, BrazilInst Diabet Endocrinol Joinville, Joinville, BrazilHosp Reg Taguatinga, Brasilia, DF, BrazilHosp Geral Goiania, Goiania, Go, BrazilCtr Diabet & Endocrinol Estado Bahia, Goiania, Go, BrazilUniv Fed Maranhao, Sao Luis, BrazilCtr Integrado Diabet & Hipertensao Ceara, Fortaleza, Ceara, BrazilUniv Fed Sergipe, Aracaju, BrazilHosp Univ Alcides Carneiro, Campina Grande, BrazilHosp Univ Joao de Barros Barreto, Belem, Para, BrazilFed Univ São Paulo State, Diabet Unit, São Paulo, BrazilUniv Hosp São Paulo, Diabet Unit, São Paulo, BrazilUniv Hosp São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilEscola Paulista Med, Ctr Diabet, Ribeirao Preto, BrazilWeb of Scienc

Global, regional, and national burden of traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI) are increasingly recognised as global health priorities in view of the preventability of most injuries and the complex and expensive medical care they necessitate. We aimed to measure the incidence, prevalence, and years of life lived with disability (YLDs) for TBI and SCI from all causes of injury in every country, to describe how these measures have changed between 1990 and 2016, and to estimate the proportion of TBI and SCI cases caused by different types of injury. METHODS: We used results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study 2016 to measure the global, regional, and national burden of TBI and SCI by age and sex. We measured the incidence and prevalence of all causes of injury requiring medical care in inpatient and outpatient records, literature studies, and survey data. By use of clinical record data, we estimated the proportion of each cause of injury that required medical care that would result in TBI or SCI being considered as the nature of injury. We used literature studies to establish standardised mortality ratios and applied differential equations to convert incidence to prevalence of long-term disability. Finally, we applied GBD disability weights to calculate YLDs. We used a Bayesian meta-regression tool for epidemiological modelling, used cause-specific mortality rates for non-fatal estimation, and adjusted our results for disability experienced with comorbid conditions. We also analysed results on the basis of the Socio-demographic Index, a compound measure of income per capita, education, and fertility. FINDINGS: In 2016, there were 27·08 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 24·30-30·30 million) new cases of TBI and 0·93 million (0·78-1·16 million) new cases of SCI, with age-standardised incidence rates of 369 (331-412) per 100 000 population for TBI and 13 (11-16) per 100 000 for SCI. In 2016, the number of prevalent cases of TBI was 55·50 million (53·40-57·62 million) and of SCI was 27·04 million (24·98-30·15 million). From 1990 to 2016, the age-standardised prevalence of TBI increased by 8·4% (95% UI 7·7 to 9·2), whereas that of SCI did not change significantly (-0·2% [-2·1 to 2·7]). Age-standardised incidence rates increased by 3·6% (1·8 to 5·5) for TBI, but did not change significantly for SCI (-3·6% [-7·4 to 4·0]). TBI caused 8·1 million (95% UI 6·0-10·4 million) YLDs and SCI caused 9·5 million (6·7-12·4 million) YLDs in 2016, corresponding to age-standardised rates of 111 (82-141) per 100 000 for TBI and 130 (90-170) per 100 000 for SCI. Falls and road injuries were the leading causes of new cases of TBI and SCI in most regions. INTERPRETATION: TBI and SCI constitute a considerable portion of the global injury burden and are caused primarily by falls and road injuries. The increase in incidence of TBI over time might continue in view of increases in population density, population ageing, and increasing use of motor vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles. The number of individuals living with SCI is expected to increase in view of population growth, which is concerning because of the specialised care that people with SCI can require. Our study was limited by data sparsity in some regions, and it will be important to invest greater resources in collection of data for TBI and SCI to improve the accuracy of future assessments

Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: A systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Background: A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Methods Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. Findings In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97\ub71 (95% UI 95\ub78-98\ub71) in Iceland, followed by 96\ub76 (94\ub79-97\ub79) in Norway and 96\ub71 (94\ub75-97\ub73) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18\ub76 (13\ub71-24\ub74) in the Central African Republic, 19\ub70 (14\ub73-23\ub77) in Somalia, and 23\ub74 (20\ub72-26\ub78) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91\ub75 (89\ub71-93\ub76) in Beijing to 48\ub70 (43\ub74-53\ub72) in Tibet (a 43\ub75-point difference), while India saw a 30\ub78-point disparity, from 64\ub78 (59\ub76-68\ub78) in Goa to 34\ub70 (30\ub73-38\ub71) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4\ub78-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20\ub79-point to 17\ub70-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17\ub72-point to 20\ub74-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. Interpretation GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle- SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage hinges upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view-and subsequent provision-of quality health care for all populations

Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: A systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. Background A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Methods Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. Findings In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97·1 (95% UI 95·8-98·1) in Iceland, followed by 96·6 (94·9-97·9) in Norway and 96·1 (94·5-97·3) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18·6 (13·1-24·4) in the Central African Republic, 19·0 (14·3-23·7) in Somalia, and 23·4 (20·2-26·8) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91·5 (89·1-93·6) in Beijing to 48·0 (43·4-53·2) in Tibet (a 43·5-point difference), while India saw a 30·8-point disparity, from 64·8 (59·6-68·8) in Goa to 34·0 (30·3-38·1) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4·8-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20·9-point to 17·0-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17·2-point to 20·4-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. Interpretation GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle- SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage hinges upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view - and subsequent provision - of quality health care for all populations