A expressão do princípio de integralidade no controle social: uma visão de conselheiros de saúde

Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro de Ciências da Saúde. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Pública.O princípio da integralidade compõe, associado ao princípio da universalidade e ao princípio da eqüidade, a tríade doutrinária do Sistema Único de Saúde, o SUS. Enquanto, em ambiente adverso, a universalidade do sistema já assumiu caráter "excludente" e a eqüidade busca orientações para sua concretização, a integralidade permanece no esquecimento. Embora seja reconhecidamente relevante, do ponto de vista finalístico, a integralidade não tem sido estudada ou debatida suficientemente. Por outro lado, o controle social é a forma legal e institucionalizada da participação popular no SUS. Através dos conselhos de saúde, possui a responsabilidade de zelar pelos princípios que fundamentaram todo o processo da reforma sanitária. Assim, este estudo tem por objetivo avaliar a expressão do princípio da integralidade em saúde no âmbito do controle social, considerando as percepções de conselheiros de saúde. O grau de aproximação dos conselheiros ao tema é desconhecido, sejam estes trabalhadores de saúde, gestores, prestadores privados ou usuários. Trata-se de um estudo qualitativo, com abordagem dialética. A coleta de dados foi realizada através de entrevista semi-estruturada em profundidade. Foram selecionados dez conselheiros de saúde, a partir da lista de inscrição em um evento estadual de conselheiros de Santa Catarina. A seleção contemplou conselheiros de todas as instâncias (municipal, estadual e nacional) e segmentos legalmente representados nos conselhos (usuários, prestadores de serviços de saúde públicos e privados/contratados e profissionais de saúde). Os resultados traduzem as percepções dos conselheiros entrevistados sobre três eixos temáticos desenvolvidos: no primeiro, Os conselhos de saúde, são tratados os assuntos referentes à organização e composição dos conselhos, o processo de relacionamento interno, a percepção do desempenho dos conselheiros e os fatores que motivaram o ingresso no controle social. No segundo eixo temático, A expressão do princípio de integralidade, é abordada a concepção de saúde integral, a relação integralidade/universalidade/eqüidade, discutindo-se também as condições de materialização da integralidade nas ações de saúde, especialmente a partir da política de atenção integral à saúde da mulher. O terceiro eixo, Perspectivas de potencialização do controle social, são analisadas as expectativas e sugestões dos conselheiros para aprimoramento do controle social. Observou-se que o princípio de integralidade não era conhecido por parte de alguns conselheiros, sendo mais conhecido na medida em que se ascende às instâncias dos conselhos. As condições para sua concretização são discutidas com apoio de revisão bibliográfica, resultando em alguns requisitos imprescindíveis, entre os quais a percepção de que os princípios doutrinários do SUS só poderão ser concretizados se tomados simultaneamente, pois são interdependentes. Os conselhos de saúde, por sua vez, ainda enfrentam problemas de organização e de ausência de estatutos capazes de romper valores clientelistas cristalizados na sociedade brasileira. O controle social necessita adquirir visibilidade e ser fortalecido mediante um processo de educação continuada e em rede. Sob outro ângulo, é possível afirmar que os conselhos de saúde significam uma experiência singular e preciosa para o processo de consolidação democrática do país. Embora a institucionalização dos movimentos sociais junto à gestão do SUS, por si só, não possa garantir eliminação das iniqüidades e tampouco a garantia de vigência plena do direito universal e integral à saúde, a expressiva condição dos conselhos de saúde comprova sua vitalidade atual

Risk of adverse outcomes in offspring with RT-PCR confirmed prenatal Zika virus exposure: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 13 cohorts in the Zika Brazilian Cohorts

The Zika Brazilian Cohorts Consortium was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq) (grant number 404861/2018-0). The individual studies participating in the ZBC-Consortium were funded by: Wellcome Trust and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (grant numbers: 205377/Z/16/Z; 201870/Z/16/Z). European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under ZikaPLAN (grant number 734584). Wellcome Trust - Research Enrichment in Epidemic Situation (grant number 107779/Z/15/Z; with ER1505 & ER1601). Medical Research Council on behalf of the Newton Fund and Wellcome Trust (grant number MC_PC_15088). National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (grant number RO1/ AI140718). Fondation Christophe et Rodolphe Mérieux. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq) (grant numbers 443875/2018-9; 440573/2016-5; 441098/2016-9; 305090/2016-0; 307282/2017-1; 304476/2018-8; 465549/2014-4; 440763/2016-9; 309722/2017-9; 306708/2014-0; 440577/2016-0). Coordination for the improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Capes) (grant numbers 88881.130813/2016-01; 88887.116627/2016-01; 88887.136366/2017-00). Ministry of Health of Brazil - Emergency Response in Public Health - Zika virus and Microcephaly (Ministério da Saúde de Brasil - Resposta à Emergência em Saúde Pública – Zika vírus e Microcefalia) (grant number 837058/2016). Department of Science and Technology (Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia - DECIT) (grant numbers 25000.072811/2016-19; 440839/2016-5). Foundation of Research Support of the State of São Paulo (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo – FAPESP) (grant numbers 2016/08578-0; 2017/21688-1; 2013/21719-3; 2016/ 15021-1; 2015/12295-0; 2016/05115-9). Foundation of Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – FAPERJ) (grant numbers E-26/201.351/2016; E-18/ 2015TXB; E-26/202.862/2018; E 26/010.002477/2016). Foundation of Support for Research and Scientific and Technological Development of Maranhão (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico do Maranhão – FAPEMA) (grant number 008/2016). Brazilian Ministry of Health (Ministério da Saúde – MS) (grant number 929698560001160-02). Evandro Chagas Institute/Brazilian Ministry of Health (Instituto Evandro Chagas/Ministério da Saúde). Foundation of Research Support of the State of Goiás (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás – FAPEG) (number grant 2017/10267000531). Foundation of Research Support of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul – FAPERGS) (grant number 17/2551-0000521-0). Foundation to Support Teaching, Research and Assistance at Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto (Fundação de Apoio ao Ensino, Pesquisa e Assistência do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto) and São Paulo State Department of Health (Secretaria de Saúde do Estado de São Paulo). Support Foundation of Pernambuco Science and Technology (Fundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia de Pernambuco – FACEPE) (grant numbers APQ-0172-4.01/16; APQ-0192-4.01/17; APQ0793-4.01/17).Federal University of Pernambuco. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Recife, PE, Brazil / University of Pernambuco. Post-Graduation in Health Sciences. Recife, PE, Brazil.University of Pernambuco. Post-Graduation in Health Sciences. Recife, PE, Brazil.London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology. London, UK.Federal University of Pernambuco. Postgraduate Program in Collective Health. Recife, PE, Brazil.University of Pernambuco. Post-Graduation in Health Sciences. Recife, PE, Brazil.University of Amazonas State. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil / Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado Tropical Medicine Foundation. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Ribeirão Preto Medical School. Department of Pediatrics. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Ribeirão Preto Medical School. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Ribeirão Preto Medical School. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Ribeirão Preto Medical School. Department of Pediatrics. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.University of Amazonas State. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil / Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado Tropical Medicine Foundation. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil.University of Amazonas State. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil / Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado Tropical Medicine Foundation. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Instituto Fernandes Figueira. Clinical Research Unit. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Instituto Fernandes Figueira. Clinical Research Unit. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Instituto Fernandes Figueira. Obstretics. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.University of California. David Geffen School of Medicine. Department of Pediatrics. Los Angeles, CA, Estados Unidos.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Research Center Aggeu Magalhães. Recife, PE, Brazil.London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology. London, UK.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Research Center Aggeu Magalhães. Recife, PE, Brazil.Altino Ventura Foundation. Department of Ophthalmology. Recife, PE, Brazil / Pernambuco Eyes Hospital. Recife, PE, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde e Ambiente. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde e Ambiente. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde e Ambiente. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde e Ambiente. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Medicine School of São José do Rio Preto. Department of Infectious Disease. São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil.Medicine School of São José do Rio Preto. Department of Infectious Disease. São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil.Medicine School of São José do Rio Preto. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics. São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil.Medicine School of Jundiaí. Infectious Pediatric Laboratory. Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.Federal University of São Paulo. Department of Fetal Medicine. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Father Anchieta University Center. Nursing School. Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.Federal University of São Paulo. Paulista School of Medicine. Departament of Obstetrics. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Federal University of Goiás. Institute of Tropical Pathology and Public Health. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Health Secretariat of Goiás State. Maternal and Child Hospital. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Federal University of São Paulo. Paulista School of Medicine. Departament of Obstetrics. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Health Secretariat of Goiás State. Maternal and Child Hospital. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Hospital das Clinicas de Porto Alegre. Departamento de Genética. Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.City Hall of Tangará da Serra, Municipal Health Department, Tangará da Serra, MT, Brazil.Federal University of Campina Grande. Medical Academic Unit. Campina Grande, PB, Brazil.Federal University of Campina Grande. Medical Academic Unit. Campina Grande, PB, Brazil.Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Department of Pediatrics. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.D’Or Institute for Research & Education. Department of Pediatrics. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Departmentiversity of Rio de Janeiro Maternity School. Department of Obstectrics. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Departmentiversity of Rio de Janeiro Maternity School. Department of Obstectrics. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Reference Maternity Prof. José Maria de Magalhães Netto. Bahia Health Department, Salvador, BA, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Gonçalo Moniz Institute. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Gonçalo Moniz Institute. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Department of Infecitous Diseases. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Department of Infecitous Diseases. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Gonçalo Moniz Institute. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Leonidas and Maria Deane Institute. Manaus, AM, Brazil.University of Amazonas State. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil / Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado Tropical Medicine Foundation. Postgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine. Manaus, AM, Brazil / Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Leonidas and Maria Deane Institute. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Background: Knowledge regarding the risks associated with Zika virus (ZIKV) infections in pregnancy has relied on individual studies with relatively small sample sizes and variable risk estimates of adverse outcomes, or on surveillance or routinely collected data. Using data from the Zika Brazilian Cohorts Consortium, this study aims, to estimate the risk of adverse outcomes among offspring of women with RT-PCR-confirmed ZIKV infection during pregnancy and to explore heterogeneity between studies. Methods: We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis of the offspring of 1548 pregnant women from 13 studies, using one and two-stage meta-analyses to estimate the absolute risks. Findings: Of the 1548 ZIKV-exposed pregnancies, the risk of miscarriage was 0.9%, while the risk of stillbirth was 0.3%. Among the pregnancies with liveborn children, the risk of prematurity was 10,5%, the risk of low birth weight was 7.7, and the risk of small for gestational age (SGA) was 16.2%. For other abnormalities, the absolute risks were: 2.6% for microcephaly at birth or first evaluation, 4.0% for microcephaly at any time during follow-up, 7.9% for neuroimaging abnormalities, 18.7% for functional neurological abnormalities, 4.0% for ophthalmic abnormalities, 6.4% for auditory abnormalities, 0.6% for arthrogryposis, and 1.5% for dysphagia. This risk was similar in all sites studied and in different socioeconomic conditions, indicating that there are not likely to be other factors modifying this association. Interpretation: This study based on prospectively collected data generates the most robust evidence to date on the risks of congenital ZIKV infections over the early life course. Overall, approximately one-third of liveborn children with prenatal ZIKV exposure presented with at least one abnormality compatible with congenital infection, while the risk to present with at least two abnormalities in combination was less than 1.0%

Risk of adverse outcomes in offspring with RT-PCR confirmed prenatal Zika virus exposure: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 13 cohorts in the Zika Brazilian Cohorts ConsortiumResearch in context

Summary: Background: Knowledge regarding the risks associated with Zika virus (ZIKV) infections in pregnancy has relied on individual studies with relatively small sample sizes and variable risk estimates of adverse outcomes, or on surveillance or routinely collected data. Using data from the Zika Brazilian Cohorts Consortium, this study aims, to estimate the risk of adverse outcomes among offspring of women with RT-PCR-confirmed ZIKV infection during pregnancy and to explore heterogeneity between studies. Methods: We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis of the offspring of 1548 pregnant women from 13 studies, using one and two-stage meta-analyses to estimate the absolute risks. Findings: Of the 1548 ZIKV-exposed pregnancies, the risk of miscarriage was 0.9%, while the risk of stillbirth was 0.3%. Among the pregnancies with liveborn children, the risk of prematurity was 10,5%, the risk of low birth weight was 7.7, and the risk of small for gestational age (SGA) was 16.2%. For other abnormalities, the absolute risks were: 2.6% for microcephaly at birth or first evaluation, 4.0% for microcephaly at any time during follow-up, 7.9% for neuroimaging abnormalities, 18.7% for functional neurological abnormalities, 4.0% for ophthalmic abnormalities, 6.4% for auditory abnormalities, 0.6% for arthrogryposis, and 1.5% for dysphagia. This risk was similar in all sites studied and in different socioeconomic conditions, indicating that there are not likely to be other factors modifying this association. Interpretation: This study based on prospectively collected data generates the most robust evidence to date on the risks of congenital ZIKV infections over the early life course. Overall, approximately one-third of liveborn children with prenatal ZIKV exposure presented with at least one abnormality compatible with congenital infection, while the risk to present with at least two abnormalities in combination was less than 1.0%. Funding: National Council for Scientific and Technological Development - Brazil (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq); Wellcome Trust and the United Kingdom's Department for International Development; European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; Medical Research Council on behalf of the Newton Fund and Wellcome Trust; National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Foundation Christophe et Rodolphe Mérieux; Coordination for the improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Capes); Ministry of Health of Brazil; Brazilian Department of Science and Technology; Foundation of Research Support of the State of São Paulo (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo – FAPESP); Foundation of Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – FAPERJ); Foundation of Support for Research and Scientific and Technological Development of Maranhão; Evandro Chagas Institute/Brazilian Ministry of Health (Instituto Evandro Chagas/Ministério da Saúde); Foundation of Research Support of the State of Goiás (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás – FAPEG); Foundation of Research Support of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul – FAPERGS); Foundation to Support Teaching, Research and Assistance at Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto (Fundação de Apoio ao Ensino, Pesquisa e Assistência do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto); São Paulo State Department of Health (Secretaria de Saúde do Estado de São Paulo); Support Foundation of Pernambuco Science and Technology (Fundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia de Pernambuco – FACEPE)

Brazilian Flora 2020: Leveraging the power of a collaborative scientific network

International audienceThe shortage of reliable primary taxonomic data limits the description of biological taxa and the understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes, complicating biogeographical, ecological, and evolutionary studies. This deficit creates a significant taxonomic impediment to biodiversity research and conservation planning. The taxonomic impediment and the biodiversity crisis are widely recognized, highlighting the urgent need for reliable taxonomic data. Over the past decade, numerous countries worldwide have devoted considerable effort to Target 1 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC), which called for the preparation of a working list of all known plant species by 2010 and an online world Flora by 2020. Brazil is a megadiverse country, home to more of the world's known plant species than any other country. Despite that, Flora Brasiliensis, concluded in 1906, was the last comprehensive treatment of the Brazilian flora. The lack of accurate estimates of the number of species of algae, fungi, and plants occurring in Brazil contributes to the prevailing taxonomic impediment and delays progress towards the GSPC targets. Over the past 12 years, a legion of taxonomists motivated to meet Target 1 of the GSPC, worked together to gather and integrate knowledge on the algal, plant, and fungal diversity of Brazil. Overall, a team of about 980 taxonomists joined efforts in a highly collaborative project that used cybertaxonomy to prepare an updated Flora of Brazil, showing the power of scientific collaboration to reach ambitious goals. This paper presents an overview of the Brazilian Flora 2020 and provides taxonomic and spatial updates on the algae, fungi, and plants found in one of the world's most biodiverse countries. We further identify collection gaps and summarize future goals that extend beyond 2020. Our results show that Brazil is home to 46,975 native species of algae, fungi, and plants, of which 19,669 are endemic to the country. The data compiled to date suggests that the Atlantic Rainforest might be the most diverse Brazilian domain for all plant groups except gymnosperms, which are most diverse in the Amazon. However, scientific knowledge of Brazilian diversity is still unequally distributed, with the Atlantic Rainforest and the Cerrado being the most intensively sampled and studied biomes in the country. In times of “scientific reductionism”, with botanical and mycological sciences suffering pervasive depreciation in recent decades, the first online Flora of Brazil 2020 significantly enhanced the quality and quantity of taxonomic data available for algae, fungi, and plants from Brazil. This project also made all the information freely available online, providing a firm foundation for future research and for the management, conservation, and sustainable use of the Brazilian funga and flora

Phylogenomics and the rise of the angiosperms

International audienceAngiosperms are the cornerstone of most terrestrial ecosystems and human livelihoods 1,2 . A robust understanding of angiosperm evolution is required to explain their rise to ecological dominance. So far, the angiosperm tree of life has been determined primarily by means of analyses of the plastid genome 3,4 . Many studies have drawn on this foundational work, such as classification and first insights into angiosperm diversification since their Mesozoic origins 5–7 . However, the limited and biased sampling of both taxa and genomes undermines confidence in the tree and its implications. Here, we build the tree of life for almost 8,000 (about 60%) angiosperm genera using a standardized set of 353 nuclear genes 8 . This 15-fold increase in genus-level sampling relative to comparable nuclear studies 9 provides a critical test of earlier results and brings notable change to key groups, especially in rosids, while substantiating many previously predicted relationships. Scaling this tree to time using 200 fossils, we discovered that early angiosperm evolution was characterized by high gene tree conflict and explosive diversification, giving rise to more than 80% of extant angiosperm orders. Steady diversification ensued through the remaining Mesozoic Era until rates resurged in the Cenozoic Era, concurrent with decreasing global temperatures and tightly linked with gene tree conflict. Taken together, our extensive sampling combined with advanced phylogenomic methods shows the deep history and full complexity in the evolution of a megadiverse clade