una mirada desde las Ciencias de la Conducta

Este libro es el resultado de los trabajos presentados en el 1er Congreso Internacional "Convivencia y bienestar con sentido humanista para una cultura de paz"

POR UNA CULTURA DE PAZ: UNA MIRADA DESDE LAS CIENCIAS DE LA CONDUCTA

En
 virtud
 de
 lo
 anterior,
 los
 estudiosos
 de
 las
 ciencias
 de
 la
 conducta
 
de
 la
 Universidad
Autónoma 
del
 Estado 
de 
México,

ante 
la
persistencia
 y 
proliferación
 de
 estos 
hechos
 en
 diversas
 partes
 del
Mundo
 y
 de
 nuestro 
país 
en 
particular, se
 convocó
 a
 los
 estudiosos
 interesados
 y
 a
 la
 sociedad
 en
 general
 a
 presentar
 trabajos
 para
 analizar,
 debatir
 y
 proponer
 estrategias
 de
 acción
 y
 dirección,
 que
 fortalezcan
 una
 convivencia y bienestar con sentido humanista para una cultura de paz. El
 presente
 texto
 es
 producto
 de 
esta convocatoria 
que
 recoge 
los
trabajos 
de 

los
 interesados 
en 
la
 temática,

 de
 diferentes 
países
(España,
Argentina,
Cuba,
Brasil,
Costa
 Rica
 y
 México)
 retomando
 con
 ello
 sus
 experiencias
 relativas
 al
 estudio,
 análisis,
 comprensión
 e
 instrumentación
 de
 la
 cultura
 de
 paz
 en
 los
 distintos
 ámbitos
 institucionales
 en
 los
 que
 participan:
 educativo,
 salud,
 penitenciario,
 social,
laboral,
familia,
alimentario,
psicológico,
por 
mencionar 
algunos.
 El
 presente
 libro,
 propicia
 un
 espacio
 de
 reflexión,
 diálogo
 y
 posicionamiento
 de
 las 
ciencias 
de 
la 
conducta
 para 
la 
apropiación,
análisis,
debate
 y 
propuestas 
que
 fortalezcan 
una
 cultura
 de 
paz
 a
través
 de 
la
 convivencia 
y
 el 
bienestar
 social 
con
 sentido 
humanista.
El
 sistema 
económico
 neoliberal
 y 
el 
proceso
 de 
globalización 
han
 contribuido
al
 logro
 de
 avances
 significativos
 en
 la
 ciencia
 y
 la
 tecnología,
 pero
 también
 han
 propiciado
 la
 polarización
 de
 las
 sociedades
 lo
 que
 ha
 impactado
 de
 manera
 negativa
 a
 la
 sociedad
 en
 su
 conjunto,
 pero
 en
 mayor
 medida
 a
 los grupos
 vulnerables. Dicha
 polarización
 ha
 traído
 consigo
 un
 desarrollo
 desigual
 del
 mundo
 que
 se
 expresa
 de
 diferentes
 maneras
 tanto
 en
 países
 desarrollados
 como
 en
 los
 llamados
 del
 tercer
 mundo,
 en
 donde
 no
 están
 satisfechas
 las
 necesidades
 humanas 
elementales
 de
 todos 
los
sectores 
de 
la 
población,
siempre 
falta 
algo. 
Si 
a
 esto 
le
 sumamos 
los
conflictos
 internacionales por
 diferentes
 motivos
 que
 enfrentan
 algunas
 naciones,
 una
 insuficiente
 cobertura
 educativa
 y
 de
 salud,

 desempleo
 y
 pobreza 
extrema,
 entre 
otras
 cosas; 
estamos
 frente
 a
retos 
de
 gran
 envergadura
 para
 los
 gobiernos,
 para
 los
 estudiosos
 y
 para
 la
 sociedad
 civil
 en
 general. Uno 
de 
los
 intentos
 para
 frenar 
y prevenir 
la
 agudización
 de 
estas 
problemáticas
 es
 la
 cultura 
de 
paz,
cuyo
 estudio
y propuestas 
han 
ido 
avanzando 
en 
diferentes
 sentidos 
y 
de 
manera 
favorable,
el 
tema 
está 
presente 
en 
diferentes 
Organismos
 Internacionales
 como
 la
 ONU,
 la
 UNESCO,
 la
 OCDE,
 El
 Banco
 Mundial,
 entre
 otros.
 Pero
 falta 
mucho 
por 
hacer.Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Méxic

Evaluación de pavimentos de nueve vías de la Ciudad de Cuenca

aEVALUACIÓN DE PAVIMENTOS DE NUEVE VÍAS DE LA CIUDAD DE CUENCA, se ha ejecutado pensando en la ciudad, la cual tiene un porcentaje elevado de las calles con pavimento flexible y, entre ellas las nueve vías que se han estudiado, las mismas que vienen prestando muchos años de servicio, por lo que se ha visto la necesidad de evaluar las condiciones superficiales, estructurales y dar soluciones adecuadas que redunde en un mejor nivel de servicio y, que aumente la vida útil del pavimento.Ingeniero CivilCuenc

Por una cultura de paz, una mirada desde las Ciencias de la Conducta

Este libro es el resultado de los trabajos presentados en el 1er Congreso Internacional "Convivencia y bienestar con sentido humanista para una cultura de paz"

A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study

© 2023Background: The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene–drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug–gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug–gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug–gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. Findings: Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41 696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54–0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61–0·79]; p <0·0001). Interpretation: Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. Funding: European Union Horizon 2020

Global attitudes in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic: ACIE Appy Study

Background: Surgical strategies are being adapted to face the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations on the management of acute appendicitis have been based on expert opinion, but very little evidence is available. This study addressed that dearth with a snapshot of worldwide approaches to appendicitis. Methods: The Association of Italian Surgeons in Europe designed an online survey to assess the current attitude of surgeons globally regarding the management of patients with acute appendicitis during the pandemic. Questions were divided into baseline information, hospital organization and screening, personal protective equipment, management and surgical approach, and patient presentation before versus during the pandemic. Results: Of 744 answers, 709 (from 66 countries) were complete and were included in the analysis. Most hospitals were treating both patients with and those without COVID. There was variation in screening indications and modality used, with chest X-ray plus molecular testing (PCR) being the commonest (19\ub78 per cent). Conservative management of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was used by 6\ub76 and 2\ub74 per cent respectively before, but 23\ub77 and 5\ub73 per cent, during the pandemic (both P < 0\ub7001). One-third changed their approach from laparoscopic to open surgery owing to the popular (but evidence-lacking) advice from expert groups during the initial phase of the pandemic. No agreement on how to filter surgical smoke plume during laparoscopy was identified. There was an overall reduction in the number of patients admitted with appendicitis and one-third felt that patients who did present had more severe appendicitis than they usually observe. Conclusion: Conservative management of mild appendicitis has been possible during the pandemic. The fact that some surgeons switched to open appendicectomy may reflect the poor guidelines that emanated in the early phase of SARS-CoV-2