STANDARD PRECAUTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE: ADAPTACIÓN CULTURAL Y VALIDACIÓN SEMÁNTICA PARA PROFESIONALES DE SALUD DE BRASIL

Objetivo: Efectuar la adaptación cultural y la validación semántica del Standard PrecautionsQuestionnaire para profesionales de salud brasileños.Método: Estudio desarrollado entre 2017 y 2018, en Río de Janeiro. La adaptación culturalcomprendió: traducción, consenso sobre la versión en portugués, evaluación de expertos,retrotraducción, consenso y comparación con la versión original, evaluación semántica yvalidación semántica. Se respetaron todos los aspectos éticos.Resultados: Para la validación de contenido, las puntuaciones oscilaron entre 0,60 y 1,00 yel puntaje fue de 0,96, indicando que los ítems son muy representativos. En la evaluaciónsemántica, 22 (80%) ítems fueron considerados relevantes y 24 (100%) ítems fueronconsiderados claros y comprensibles por todos los profesionales.Conclusión: Los ítems de la versión brasileña del instrumento fueron representativos, relevantesen la práctica clínica del profesional de salud para evaluar los obstáculos de adhesión a lasprecauciones estándar. Serán necesarios estudios evaluando las propiedades psicométricasdel instrumento.Objective: to accomplish the cultural adaptation and semantic validation of the StandardPrecautions Questionnaire for Brazilian health professionals.Method: study developed between 2017 and 2018, in Rio de Janeiro. The cultural adaptationincluded translation, consensus on the Portuguese version, evaluation by experts, backtranslation,consensus and comparison with the original version, semantic evaluation andsemantic validation. All ethical aspects were respected.Results: for the content validation, the scores ranged from 0.60 to 1.00 and the score was0.96, indicating that the items are very representative. In the semantic evaluation, 22 (80%)of the items were considered relevant and 24 (100%) of the items were considered clear andunderstandable by all professionals.Conclusion: the items of the Brazilian version of the instrument were representative, relevantfor the clinical practice of health professionals in assessing the obstacles to adhere to standardprecautions. Studies are needed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the instrument.Objetivo: realizar a adaptação cultural e a validação semântica do Standard Precautions Questionnairepara profissionais de saúde brasileiros.Métodos: estudo desenvolvido entre 2017 e 2018 no Rio de Janeiro. A adaptação cultural incluiu atradução, o consenso sobre a versão em português, a avaliação por especialistas, a retrotradução,o consenso e a comparação com a versão original, a avaliação semântica e a validação semântica.Todos os aspectos éticos foram respeitados.Resultados: na validação de conteúdo, as pontuações variaram de 0.60 a 1.00 e a pontuação foiigual a 0.96, indicando que os itens são muito representativos. Na avaliação semântica, 22 (80%)itens foram considerados relevantes e 24 (100%) itens foram considerados claros e compreensíveispor todos os profissionais.Conclusão: os itens da versão brasileira do instrumento foram representativos e relevantes paraa prática clínica de profissionais de saúde na avaliação dos obstáculos para aderir a precauçõespadrão. Estudos são necessários para avaliar as propriedades psicométricas do instrumento

Fatores associados à utilização e reutilização de máscaras entre brasileiros durante a pandemia da COVID-19

Objetivo identificar os fatores associados à utilização e à reutilização de máscaras entre brasileiros durante a pandemia da COVID-19. Método estudo transversal desenvolvido nas cinco regiões brasileiras, entre adultos, via formulário eletrônico por meio de mídias sociais, contendo informações gerais e referentes à utilização de máscaras. Foram utilizadas análises bivariadas e regressões logísticas binárias para identificar fatores associados à utilização e à reutilização. Resultados participaram do estudo 3.981 (100%) pessoas. A utilização de máscaras totalizou 95,5%, (IC 95%: 94,8-96,1), com destaque para as de tecido (72,7%; IC 95%: 71,3-74,1) e as cirúrgicas (27,8%; IC 95%: 26,5-29,2). A porcentagem de reutilização foi de 71,1% (IC 95%: 69,7-72,5). A maioria (55,8%; IC 95%: 51,7-60,0) que usa, exclusivamente, máscara cirúrgica reutiliza-a. O sexo feminino e o contato prévio com pessoas com sintomas respiratórios aumentaram as chances de utilização (p≤0,001). Contudo, o sexo feminino diminuiu a possibilidade de reutilização da máscara cirúrgica (p≤0,001). Conclusão a quase totalidade dos participantes relatou utilizar máscaras, sendo mais recorrente a de tecido. Os achados chamam atenção para uma prática de risco, a reutilização da máscara cirúrgica e de papel. Diretrizes, políticas públicas e estratégias educativas são necessárias para o desenvolvimento de práticas assertivas no controle e prevenção da COVID-19.Objective to identify the factors associated with the use and reuse of masks among Brazilian individuals in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Method cross-sectional study conducted in the five Brazilian regions, among adult individuals, via an electronic form disseminated in social media, addressing general information and the use of masks. Bivariate analysis and binary logistic regression were used to identify the factors associated with the use and reuse of masks. Results 3,981 (100%) individuals participated in the study. In total, 95.5% (CI 95%: 94.8-96.1) reported using masks. Fabric masks were more frequently reported (72.7%; CI 95%: 71.3-74.1), followed by surgical masks (27.8%; CI 95%: 26.5-29.2). The percentage of reuse was 71.1% (CI 95%: 69.7-72.5). Most (55.8%; CI 95%: 51.7-60.0) of those exclusively wearing surgical masks reported its reuse. Being a woman and having had contact with individuals presenting respiratory symptoms increased the likelihood of wearing masks (p≤0.001). Additionally, being a woman decreased the likelihood of reusing surgical masks (p≤0.001). Conclusion virtually all the participants reported the use of masks, most frequently fabric masks. The findings draw attention to a risky practice, that of reusing surgical and paper masks. Therefore, guidelines, public policies, and educational strategies are needed to promote the correct use of masks to control and prevent COVID-19.Objetivo identificar los factores asociados con el uso y la reutilización de máscaras entre brasileños durante la pandemia del COVID-19. Método estudio transversal desarrollado en las cinco regiones brasileñas, entre adultos, aplicándose un formulario electrónico a través de las redes sociales, que contiene información general y relativo al uso de máscaras. Se utilizaron análisis bivariados y regresiones logísticas binarias para identificar los factores asociados con el uso y la reutilización. Resultados 3.981 (100%) personas participaron en el estudio. El uso de máscaras totalizó 95.5% (IC 95%: 94.8-96.1), particularmente las de tejido (72.7%; IC 95%: 71.3-74.1) y la quirúrgicas (27.8%; IC 95%: 26.5-29.2). El porcentaje de reutilización fue del 71,1% (IC 95%: 69,7-72,5). La mayoría (55.8%; IC 95%: 51.7-60.0) que usa exclusivamente una máscara quirúrgica la reutiliza. El género femenino y el contacto previo con personas con síntomas respiratorios aumentaron las posibilidades de uso (p≤0.001). Sin embargo, el sexo femenino disminuyó la posibilidad de reutilizar la máscara quirúrgica (p≤0.001). Conclusión casi todos los participantes informaron haber usado máscaras, siendo aquella de tejido más frecuente. Los hallazgos llaman la atención sobre una práctica arriesgada, la reutilización de la máscara quirúrgica y de papel. Las directrices, políticas públicas y estrategias educativas son necesarias para el desarrollo de prácticas asertivas en el control y la prevención del COVID-19

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used