Liderança e bem-estar dos bombeiros

Este e-Book foi desenvolvido no âmbito do projeto de investigação “Processo de Liderança e Saúde ocupacional dos bombeiros: Desenvolvimento de um programa de intervenção.” da Faculdade de Psicologia - ULisboa, com o financiamento da FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia.A publicação deste e-book surge como um dos resultados do projeto de investigação Processo de liderança e saúde ocupacional dos bombeiros: Desenvolvimento de um programa de intervenção, financiado pela Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, o qual integrou a Faculdade de Psicologia da Universidade de Lisboa (instituição proponente), a Escola Nacional de Bombeiros (instituição participante) e o Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge (instituição participante). Este projeto integra uma estratégia de desenvolver investigação e intervenção para responder aos atuais desafios societais, nomeadamente a criação de organizações saudáveis, com combate à doença mental e à promoção do bem-estar no mundo do trabalho. De facto, este projeto foi concebido com um propósito muito concreto – compreender melhor qual a liderança mais ajustada para que os chefes dos bombeiros possam atuar criando as condições para que os seus subordinados sejam resilientes e mantenham elevados níveis de bem-estar, mesmo atuando em situações de emergência muito exigentes e stressantes como é o caso dos incêndios rurais; apostar no desenvolvimento dessas competências, desenvolvendo um programa de formação para chefes, o qual passou a estar disponível na Escola Nacional de Bombeiros. Deste modo, consideramos contribuir para a tão desejada ponte entre o conhecimento académico e a prática organizacional, ajudando os decisores a tomarem decisões baseados na evidência científica. Nos três primeiros capítulos apresentamos a profissão de bombeiro como uma profissão com diversificadas exigências que podem afetar o bem-estar e salientamos a importância da liderança como um recurso para permitir que os profissionais enfrentem essas exigências garantindo que o seu bem-estar não sai prejudicado. Nos dois capítulos seguintes, apresentamos os estudos realizados neste projeto e os seus principais resultados, salientando o estilo de liderança mais adequado nas situações do dia-a-dia e durante a intervenção num incêndio rural. No capítulo final, apresentamos o programa de formação que resultou das observações dos estudos realizados e que tem como objetivo desenvolver as competências de liderança transformacional, por parte dos chefes das equipas de bombeiros.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Burden of disease attributable to risk factors in European countries: a scoping literature review

Objectives: Within the framework of the burden of disease (BoD) approach, disease, and injury burden estimates attributable to risk factors are a useful guide for policy formulation and priority setting in disease prevention. Considering the important differences in methods, and their impact on burden estimates, we conducted a scoping literature review to: (1) map the BoD assessments including risk factors performed across Europe, and (2) identify the methodological choices in comparative risk assessment (CRA) and risk assessment methods. Methods: We searched multiple literature databases, including grey literature websites, and targeted public health agencies' websites. Results: A total of 113 studies were included in the synthesis and further divided into independent BoD assessments (54 studies) and studies linked to the Global Burden of Disease (59 papers). Our results showed that the methods used to perform CRA varied substantially across independent European BoD studies. While there were some methodological choices that were more common than others, we did not observe patterns in terms of country, year, or risk factor. Each methodological choice can affect the comparability of estimates between and within countries and/or risk factors since they might significantly influence the quantification of the attributable burden. From our analysis, we observed that the use of CRA was less common for some types of risk factors and outcomes. These included environmental and occupational risk factors, which are more likely to use bottom-up approaches for health outcomes where disease envelopes may not be available. Conclusions: Our review also highlighted misreporting, the lack of uncertainty analysis, and the under-investigation of causal relationships in BoD studies. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting BoD studies will help understand differences, and avoid misinterpretations thus improving comparability among estimates.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Burden of disease attributable to risk factors in European countries: a scoping literature review

Objectives: Within the framework of the burden of disease (BoD) approach, disease, and injury burden estimates attributable to risk factors are a useful guide for policy formulation and priority setting in disease prevention. Considering the important differences in methods, and their impact on burden estimates, we conducted a scoping literature review to: (1) map the BoD assessments including risk factors performed across Europe, and (2) identify the methodological choices in comparative risk assessment (CRA) and risk assessment methods. Methods: We searched multiple literature databases, including grey literature websites, and targeted public health agencies' websites. Results: A total of 113 studies were included in the synthesis and further divided into independent BoD assessments (54 studies) and studies linked to the Global Burden of Disease (59 papers). Our results showed that the methods used to perform CRA varied substantially across independent European BoD studies. While there were some methodological choices that were more common than others, we did not observe patterns in terms of country, year, or risk factor. Each methodological choice can affect the comparability of estimates between and within countries and/or risk factors since they might significantly influence the quantification of the attributable burden. From our analysis, we observed that the use of CRA was less common for some types of risk factors and outcomes. These included environmental and occupational risk factors, which are more likely to use bottom-up approaches for health outcomes where disease envelopes may not be available. Conclusions: Our review also highlighted misreporting, the lack of uncertainty analysis, and the under-investigation of causal relationships in BoD studies. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting BoD studies will help understand differences, and avoid misinterpretations thus improving comparability among estimates.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Burden of disease attributable to risk factors in European countries: a scoping literature review

Abstract Objectives Within the framework of the burden of disease (BoD) approach, disease and injury burden estimates attributable to risk factors are a useful guide for policy formulation and priority setting in disease prevention. Considering the important differences in methods, and their impact on burden estimates, we conducted a scoping literature review to: (1) map the BoD assessments including risk factors performed across Europe; and (2) identify the methodological choices in comparative risk assessment (CRA) and risk assessment methods. Methods We searched multiple literature databases, including grey literature websites and targeted public health agencies websites. Results A total of 113 studies were included in the synthesis and further divided into independent BoD assessments (54 studies) and studies linked to the Global Burden of Disease (59 papers). Our results showed that the methods used to perform CRA varied substantially across independent European BoD studies. While there were some methodological choices that were more common than others, we did not observe patterns in terms of country, year or risk factor. Each methodological choice can affect the comparability of estimates between and within countries and/or risk factors, since they might significantly influence the quantification of the attributable burden. From our analysis we observed that the use of CRA was less common for some types of risk factors and outcomes. These included environmental and occupational risk factors, which are more likely to use bottom-up approaches for health outcomes where disease envelopes may not be available. Conclusions Our review also highlighted misreporting, the lack of uncertainty analysis and the under-investigation of causal relationships in BoD studies. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting BoD studies will help understand differences, avoid misinterpretations thus improving comparability among estimates. Registration The study protocol has been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42020177477 (available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ )