4 research outputs found

    Atenção Psicossocial e Psicologia: um mapeamento da produção científica

    No full text
    By the end of the 1970´s, begins the Psychiatric Reform Movement, whose development was the beginning of the construction of a new model, here termed Psychosocial Attention, to substitute the traditional psychiatric model. As such, aspires to be a process of paradigm shift and, therefore, requires transformations in the fields: theoretical-conceptual, technical-assistance, legal-political e sociocultural. This qualitative study composes a research which sought to ascertain the scientific production on the topic conducted by psychology, from the implementation of the Brazilian National Health System and the creation of new services to mental health care. In this sense, it proposed to investigate how the papers published in journals of psychology found in the database LILACS, since 1990, contribute to the process of building a new model that actually replace the so-called traditional psychiatric model.A partir do final da década de 1970, inicia-se o Movimento Reforma Psiquiátrica, cujo desdobramento foi o início do processo de construção de um novo modelo, aqui denominado de Atenção Psicossocial, substitutivo ao Modelo psiquiátrico tradicional. Como tal, aspira ser um processo de mudança paradigmática e, portanto, requer transformações nos campos: teóricoconceitual, técnico-assistencial, jurídico-político e sociocultural (Amarante, 2007). Este estudo, de natureza quanti-qualitativa, compõe uma pesquisa em que se buscou conhecer a produção científica sobre o tema realizada pela psicologia, a partir da implantação do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) e da criação de novos serviços de atenção em saúde mental. Nesse sentido, ele se propôs investigar como os trabalhos publicados em periódicos de psicologia encontrados na base de dados da LILACS, a partir de 1990, contribuem para o processo de construção de um novo modelo que de fato substitua o denominado modelo psiquiátrico tradicional

    Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

    No full text
    © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

    Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

    No full text
    © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research
    corecore