Programa de orientación para padres de familia con hijo discapacitado intelectual

Licenciatura en Psicología Educativ

EVALUACIÓN ECONÓMICA DE LA PLANTA PURIFICADORA DE AGUA EN INFIERNILLO, MUNICIPIO DE ARTEAGA, MICHOACÁN

The informal market of purified water in Mexico grew in 2004 to 50% in some areas. Currently, the sale of bottled water is equivalent to 26.03 million l/year, 18.22 million in water jug and 7.81 million in individual water bottles. However, the commonwealth of Infiernillo, municipality of Arteaga, Michoacán, the market niche demand is unsatisfied; coupled to 2,600 habitants of the Colonies Pitireras and Morelos consume untreated water, that contain salts and these are extracted from the dam Infiernillo. The main objective of this research is to evaluate financially a water purification plant to meet quality and quantity of product demand in the study area. For this purpose, were evaluated the assessed the economic feasibility, the economic costs of production and the monetary benefits of commercialization. Financial indicators Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C) and Net Benefit-Investment (K/N) are determined using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, the program analysis projects (ANPRO) and the Statistical Analysis Sistem package SAS. The economic information was obtained from an water purifying plant pre-feasibility study carried out in this community. The variables considered were costs of staff (509,400 pesos), raw and annually supplies (187,635 pesos), costs of fixed investment (309,543 pesos), deferred (35,087 pesos), annual costs (108,692 pesos) and revenue (3´077, 280 pesos). The results were going NPV = 6´745, 459.75 pesos; TIR = 44.15%; R B/C = 2.16 pesos and N/K = 21.73. To perform the analysis of sensitivity of total costs and total income, the project stand a decrease in the first of an increase of 20%, while in the second case it stand a decrease of 20%. However, the project shows viability

EVALUACIÓN ECONÓMICA DEL APROVECHAMIENTO FORESTAL PERSISTENTE EN COMUNIDAD SAN MIGUEL TOPILEJO, DELEGACIÓN TLALPAN, DISTRITO FEDERAL

The Persistent timber-yielding forestry in the San Miguel Topilejo community establishes a use of 10 years in its total forested area. The main objective of this research is to evaluate financially the timber exploitation in the study area. For this purpose, there were evaluated the economic feasibility, estimated the economic costs of their use and the monetary benefits of timber extraction. Financial indicators Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C) and Net Benefit-Investment (K/N) are determined using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, the program analysis projects (ANPRO) and the Statistical Analysis System package SAS. The total timber possibility of Pinus spp (30,472.950 m3) and Quercus spp (557.849 m3) were obtained from its program of forest management and PROBOSQUE gave the monetary value of their products. The studied variables were shooting down, chunking and wheel costs (primary 120.00 pesos/m3, secondary 80.00 pesos/m3 and firewood 50.00 pesos/m3), operating costs (40.00 technical services pesos/m3, elaboration of the program of management 100.00 pesos/ha, 30.00 representation expenses pesos/m3, Documentador 10.00 pesos/m3, protection 80.00 pesos/m3 and reforestation 150.00 pesos/m3) and income from sale of products of Pinus spp. (primary 1200.00 pesos/m3, secondary 600.00 pesos/m3 and firewood or firewood´s shank 100.00 pesos/m3) and Quercus spp. (primary 700.00 pesos/m3, secondary 500.00 pesos/m3 and firewood or firewood´s shank 100.00 pesos/m3). The results were going NPV = 7´744, 142.00 pesos; TIR = 123.0%; R B/C = 2.2 pesos and N/K = 4.3. To perform the analysis of sensitivity of total costs and total income, the project stand increased in the first of 20%, while the seconds stand a decrease of 20%. However, the project shows viability

Progama para la conservación y manejo sustentable de la subcuenca Tejalpa en la porción del Nevado de Toluca

29 p

Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants’ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms. © 2022 The authors