Aplicación y evaluación del seguimiento farmacoterapéutico en pacientes con hipertensión arterial del servicio de consulta externa del Hospital José María Velasco Ibarra de Tena.

La presente investigación tuvo como objetivo aplicar y evaluar el Seguimiento Farmacoterapéutico (SFT) en pacientes con hipertensión arterial del Servicio de Consulta Externa del Hospital José María Velasco Ibarra de Tena. Se contó con la colaboración de 27 pacientes ambulatorios con hipertensión arterial siendo mujeres y hombres con edades comprendidas entre 40 a 65 años. Se aplicó el SFT con la utilización del método DÁDER identificándose 68 Resultados Negativos Asociados a la Medicación (RNM), causados por Problemas Relacionados con los Medicamentos (PRMs), los mismos que se dan en su mayoría por Inefectividad Cuantitativa (58,82%) y por Inseguridad no Cuantitativa (25%). Se pudo determinar que el 70,59% de RNM pueden ser evitados con educación personalizada al paciente, ya que el 79,41% de las Intervenciones realizadas por el Farmacéutico fueron aceptadas por el médico y los pacientes; mientras que un 20,59% no pudieron ser evitados por decisión médica. Los principales PRM identificados en los pacientes hipertensos fueron: 23,53% incumplimiento parcial de la pauta (PRM5), 17,65% conservación inadecuada del medicamento (PRM6), 14,71% posible interacción farmacodinámicas o farmacocinéticas con medicamentos y plantas (PRM4), 25% efectos no deseados de principio activos y excipientes (PRM9) y 8,82% problema de salud insuficientemente tratado (PRM1). Se evaluaron parámetros clínicos logrando disminuir valores de presión arterial sistólica (24,7%), presión arterial diastólica (9,9%), glucemia basal (27,9%), triglicéridos (34,5 %), colesterol total (15,6%) a los pacientes hipertensos destacando una notable mejoría en los valores, probado después con el análisis estadístico Test t, que nos permitió obtener una diferencia entre el antes y el después de los resultados conseguidos, indicándonos que la intervención Farmacéutica tuvo un efecto positivo evidente sobre la calidad de vida relacionada a la salud del paciente. Se recomienda la aplicación del SFT en pacientes ambulatorios y hospitalizados, ya que este sistema ayuda a minimizar la tasa de morbilidad por el mal uso de medicamentos.This research is addressed to implement and evaluate Pharmacotherapy Monitoring (PM) in patients with high blood pressure of the Outpatient Services Hospital José María Velasco Ibarra of Tena. It was carried out with the collaboration of 27 outpatients with high blood pressure these outpatients were men and women between the ages from 40 to 65. The Pharmacotherapy Monitoring was applied by using Dáder method resulting 68 Negatives Results Associated with Medication (NRM), caused by Drug-Related Problems (DRP), of which the majority is taken for (58.82%) quantitative ineffectiveness and (25%) insecurity non-quantitative. It is determined that 70.59% of (NRM) could avoid with personalized education patient, as well as 79.41% of the interventions made by the pharmacist were accepted by doctors and patients; while 20.59% couldn´t avoid by medical decisión. The main drug-related problems (DRP) in patients with high blood pressure were the following: 23.53% partial non-compliance with the guideline (PRM5), 17.65% inappropriate conservation of the medical product (PRM6), 14.71% posible pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinetic interactions with medicines and plants (PRM4), 25% unwanted effects both active substances and excipients (PRM9) and 8.82% health problems insufficiently treated (PRM1). After the research, it is evaluated the clinical parameters diminishing values of systolic blood pressure, as a result, a significant improvement in values, then the statistical analysis Test t was carried out which allowed us to get a difference between the before and after of the results achieved, thus the pharmaceutical intervention had a positive effect in health-related quality life of the patient. It is recommended that the implementation of the SFT in oupatient and inpatient in order to minimize the morbidity rate by misuse of drugs

Addressing climate change with behavioral science:A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions' effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior-several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people's initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.</p

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: a global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors

Addressing climate change with behavioral science:A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions' effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior-several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people's initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.</p

Cuentos de nunca acabar. Aproximaciones desde la interculturalidad

Cuentos de nunca acabar. Aproximaciones desde la interculturalidad, surge después de la pandemia y su imposibilidad de socializar “en persona” con los compañeros de eventuales encuentros, porque la Comprensión Lectora tenía que reinventarse para su nueva reflexión cognitiva, adaptación contextual y reconstrucción del conocimiento. Este renovado enfoque de la realidad postpandemia, concebido en el marco de la educación intercultural comunitaria, busca potencializar los entornos naturales, sociales y culturales como recursos de aprendizaje multidisciplinario a través del lenguaje animado de los cuentos. En este marco, había que dinamizar la asignatura de Comunicación Oral y Escrita, que se dicta en los Primeros Niveles de los Centros de Apoyo de Otavalo, Cayambe, Latacunga y Riobamba, mediante un eje transversal donde los estudiantes escriban fundamentados en valores de la cosmovisión andina, considerando que provienen de varios lugares de la sierra y amazonía ecuatoriana. Todo surgió del encuentro presencial de un sábado cualquiera donde los estudiantes realizaban ejercicios narrativos, logrando una apreciable respuesta de imaginación, más emotiva que la clásica tarea de las Unidades, tanto así que, pasados unos días, seguían llegando sus escritos a mi correo. Entonces nos pusimos manos a la obra, cada estudiante tendría dos opciones como Actividad Integradora, la primera consistía en escribir un cuento de su propia inspiración, y la segunda analizar un clásico para comentar sus valores y antivalores. La mayor parte de estudiantes decidió escribir su propio cuento, de donde se escogieron algunas participaciones que podrían considerarse originales, para una edición que, respetando la transcripción de la tradición oral que prima en los sectores comunitarios, nos concretamos en revisar la puntuación y ortografía para publicarlos. Con esto buscamos innovar la Actividad Integradora, por algo más práctico y operativo para configurar los Objetos de Aprendizaje que buscamos. Así nació, en medio del camino, este libro de Cuentos de nunca acabar. Aproximaciones desde la interculturalidad, que ponemos en sus manos. Hernán Hermosa Mantilla Quito, junio de 202

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

International audienceEffectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors

Addressing climate change with behavioral science::A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors

The International Climate Psychology Collaboration:Climate change-related data collected from 63 countries

Climate change is currently one of humanity's greatest threats. To help scholars understand the psychology of climate change, we conducted an online quasi-experimental survey on 59,508 participants from 63 countries (collected between July 2022 and July 2023). In a between-subjects design, we tested 11 interventions designed to promote climate change mitigation across four outcomes: climate change belief, support for climate policies, willingness to share information on social media, and performance on an effortful pro-environmental behavioural task. Participants also reported their demographic information (e.g., age, gender) and several other independent variables (e.g., political orientation, perceptions about the scientific consensus). In the no-intervention control group, we also measured important additional variables, such as environmentalist identity and trust in climate science. We report the collaboration procedure, study design, raw and cleaned data, all survey materials, relevant analysis scripts, and data visualisations. This dataset can be used to further the understanding of psychological, demographic, and national-level factors related to individual-level climate action and how these differ across countries

The International Climate Psychology Collaboration: Climate change-related data collected from 63 countries.

Funder: Google Jigsaw grant (Kimberly C. Doell; Madalina Vlasceanu; Jay J. Van Bavel)Funder: FWO postdoctoral fellowship 12U1221NFunder: Dutch Research Council Grant no. 7934Funder: COVID-19 Rapid Response grant, University of ViennaFunder: the National Council for Scientific and Technological DevelopmentFunder: Christ Church College Research Centre grant to MAJA, the Biosciences and Biotechnology Research Council (BBSRC) to MAJA (David Phillips Fellowship grant number: BB/R010668/2), a Jacobs Foundation Fellowship to MAJAFunder: The work of M.D., P.B. and B.B. is supported by the DFG under Germany&apos;s Excellence Strategy (EXC 2037 and CLICCS) project no.\ 390683824, contribution to the Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability (CEN) of Universität Hamburg.Funder: NYUAD research funds to JJBFunder: the Swiss Federal Office of Energy through the "Energy, Economy, and Society&quot; program to SB (grant number: SI/502093-01)Funder: A grant from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS).Funder: We received funding from our home research institutionFunder: Leuphana University Lüneburg research fund to DDL, LB, YAE, HP, and MSFunder: Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES-PROEX and CAPES PrInt), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)Funder: Support from the ANR-Labex Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST)Funder: University of Birmingham Start up Seed Grant to AB; Prime-Pump Fund from University of BirminghamFunder: University of Geneva faculty seed fundingFunder: Pomona College Hirsch Research Initiation Grant to ARPFunder: This research was supported by the Center for Social Conflict and Cohesion Studies (ANID/FONDAP #15130009) and the Center for Intercultural and Indigenous Research (ANID/FONDAP #15110006)Funder: National Research Foundation of Korea (grant number: NRF-2020S1A3A2A02097375)Funder: Darden School of BusinessFunder: Kieskompas - Election Compass ManyLabs contribution to TWE, AK, VC, & ALOFunder: This research was supported by the Center for Social Conflict and Cohesion Studies (ANID/FONDAP #15130009), the Center for Intercultural and Indigenous Research (ANID/FONDAP #15110006) and the National Agency of Research and Development, National Doctoral Scholarship 24210087Funder: Doctoral supervisor (PI&apos;s) Dutch Science Foundation (NWO) grantFunder: Iris Engelhard is supported with a Vici grant (grant number: 453-15-005) from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).Funder: This study was funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology – FCT (Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education), under the grant UIDB/05380/2020.Funder: The Slovak Research and Development Agency (APVV) to AFFunder: The James McDonnell Foundation 21st Century Science Initiative in Understanding Human Cognition—Scholar Award (grant #220020334) and by a Sponsored Research Agreement between Meta and Fundación Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (grant #INB2376941).Funder: Thammasat University Fast Track Research FundFunder: The article was prepared within the framework of the HSE University Basic Research Program to Dmitry Grigoryev and Albina Gallyamova.Funder: the ARU Centre for Societies and Groups Research Centre Development FundsFunder: University of Stavanger, faculty of Social Science, grant targeted to research activitiesFunder: Center for the Science of Moral Understanding to KGFunder: Faculty research fund to JG at the University of Colorado Boulder.Funder: The Swiss National Science Foundation to Ulf Hahnel (Grant number: PCEFPI_203283)Funder: the internal research funds of Kochi University of Technology.Funder: RUB appointment funds to WHFunder: Dean’s Office, College of Arts and Sciences at Seton Hall University to FJFunder: the Nicolaus Copernicus University(NCU) budgetFunder: Sectorplan Social Sciences and Humanities, The Netherlands and Erasmus Centre of Empirical Legal Studies (ECELS), Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The NetherlandsFunder: American University of Sharjah Faculty Research Grant 2020Funder: American University of Sharjah Faculty Research Grant 2020 to OKFunder: Centre for Social and Early Emotional Development SEED grant to AK & EKFunder: ANU Futures Grant to CKFunder: The data collection in Norway was partly funded by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence Scheme, FAIR project No 262675Funder: Aarhus University Research Foundation (AUFF-E-2021-7-16)Funder: Social Perception and Intergroup Inequality Lab at Cornell UniversityFunder: National Geographic Society; University of Michigan Ross School of Business (Faculty Research Funds)Funder: The Clemson University Media Forensics HubFunder: John Templeton Foundation (62631) to NL & RMR; ARC Discovery Project (DP180102384) to NLFunder: the Medical Research Council (Fellowship grant numbers: MR/P014097/1 and MR/P014097/2) to PLL, the Jacobs Foundation to PLL, and the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society (Sir Henry Dale Fellowship grant number: 223264/Z/21/Z) to PLLFunder: JFRAP grant awarded to JGLFunder: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Doctoral Fellowship to YLFunder: Simon Fraser University Psychology Department Research GrantFunder: GU internal funding to AAM & SARFunder: Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Innovation (RCGI), sponsored by the FAPESP (nº 2014/50279-4 and nº 2020/15230-5) and Shell Brasil, and by the Brazil’s National Oil, Natural Gas and Biofuels Agency (ANP) through the R&D levy regulation to KLMFunder: ANR grant SCALUP (ANR-21-CE28-0016-01) to HMFunder: NOMIS Foundation grant for the Centre for the Politics of Feelings to MT and KMFunder: Applied Moral Psychology Lab at Cornell UniversityFunder: a grant (PDR 0253.19) from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS).Funder: Conflict and Human Security (HUM-1084) research groupFunder: the James McDonnell Foundation 21st Century Science Initiative in Understanding Human Cognition—Scholar Award (grant #220020334) and by a Sponsored Research Agreement between Meta and Fundación Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (grant #INB2376941).Funder: Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (grant no. P21-0384) to GNFunder: Grant number: EP/X02170X/1, awarded by the European Research Council and funded by the UKRIFunder: Statutory Funding of Institute of Psychology, University of Silesia in Katowice to MPCFunder: Leuphana University Lüneburg research fund to DDL, LB, YAE, HMP, and MSFunder: GU internal funding to AAM & SAR, Mistletoe Unfettered Research Grant, National Science Foundation GRFP Award (#1937959)Funder: John Templeton Foundation (62631) to NL & RMRFunder: Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceFunder: the Institute of Psychology & the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, SwitzerlandFunder: Universitat Ramon Llull, Esade Business SchoolFunder: University of St AndrewsFunder: the Dutch Science Foundation (NWO) to CSFunder: Faculty of Health PhD fellowshipFunder: School of Medicine and Psychology, Australian National UniversityFunder: the Swedish Research Council (2018-01755) to GTFunder: The data were obtained in the framework of the grant of the Russian Federation Government, project № 075-15-2021-611 "Human and the changing Spaces of Ural and Siberia&quot;Funder: Funding from Charles University, grant UNCE 24/SSH/018 - Peace Research Center Prague II and Cooperatio Program MCOM.Funder: Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil SocietyFunder: the Canada Research Chairs program to JZClimate change is currently one of humanity's greatest threats. To help scholars understand the psychology of climate change, we conducted an online quasi-experimental survey on 59,508 participants from 63 countries (collected between July 2022 and July 2023). In a between-subjects design, we tested 11 interventions designed to promote climate change mitigation across four outcomes: climate change belief, support for climate policies, willingness to share information on social media, and performance on an effortful pro-environmental behavioural task. Participants also reported their demographic information (e.g., age, gender) and several other independent variables (e.g., political orientation, perceptions about the scientific consensus). In the no-intervention control group, we also measured important additional variables, such as environmentalist identity and trust in climate science. We report the collaboration procedure, study design, raw and cleaned data, all survey materials, relevant analysis scripts, and data visualisations. This dataset can be used to further the understanding of psychological, demographic, and national-level factors related to individual-level climate action and how these differ across countries