Gestión del conocimiento. Perspectiva multidisciplinaria. Volumen 9

El libro “Gestión del Conocimiento. Perspectiva Multidisciplinaria”, volumen 9, de la Colección Unión Global, es resultado de investigaciones. Los capítulos del libro, son resultados de investigaciones desarrolladas por sus autores. El libro es una publicación internacional, seriada, continua, arbitrada de acceso abierto a todas las áreas del conocimiento, que cuenta con el esfuerzo de investigadores de varios países del mundo, orientada a contribuir con procesos de gestión del conocimiento científico, tecnológico y humanístico que consoliden la transformación del conocimiento en diferentes escenarios, tanto organizacionales como universitarios, para el desarrollo de habilidades cognitivas del quehacer diario. La gestión del conocimiento es un camino para consolidar una plataforma en las empresas públicas o privadas, entidades educativas, organizaciones no gubernamentales, ya sea generando políticas para todas las jerarquías o un modelo de gestión para la administración, donde es fundamental articular el conocimiento, los trabajadores, directivos, el espacio de trabajo, hacia la creación de ambientes propicios para el desarrollo integral de las instituciones

The impact of gout as described by patients, using the lens of The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) : a qualitative study

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) aims to comprehensively describe the ways in which a person's health condition affects their life. This study aimed to contribute to the development of an ICF core set for gout through patient opinion derived from focus groups and interviews. We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of data from three studies investigating the patient experience of gout. In total there were 30 individual interviews and 2 focus groups (N = 17) comprising 47 participants. We conducted thematic analysis of the textual data to extract meaning units, which were then linked to the ICF. A large number of ICF categories were relevant to patients with gout. Participants mentioned 93 third level categories, 17 of which were mentioned by more than 50% of patients. The most references for a single category was for b280, Sensation of pain, followed by personal factors (not yet categorised by the ICF). The most participants mentioned the environmental factor e355, Health professional support, followed by b280, Sensation of pain. The categories identified in this study as relevant to patients with gout highlight the severe pain associated with this disease, the impact on mobility and corresponding life areas. The roles of health professional support, medication, and personal attitudes to disease management are also reflected in the data. These results will contribute to the development of the ICF core set for gout

Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of the global burden of disease with disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) requires disability weights that quantify health losses for all non-fatal consequences of disease and injury. There has been extensive debate about a range of conceptual and methodological issues concerning the definition and measurement of these weights. Our primary objective was a comprehensive re-estimation of disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 through a large-scale empirical investigation in which judgments about health losses associated with many causes of disease and injury were elicited from the general public in diverse communities through a new, standardised approach. METHODS: We surveyed respondents in two ways: household surveys of adults aged 18 years or older (face-to-face interviews in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania; telephone interviews in the USA) between Oct 28, 2009, and June 23, 2010; and an open-access web-based survey between July 26, 2010, and May 16, 2011. The surveys used paired comparison questions, in which respondents considered two hypothetical individuals with different, randomly selected health states and indicated which person they regarded as healthier. The web survey added questions about population health equivalence, which compared the overall health benefits of different life-saving or disease-prevention programmes. We analysed paired comparison responses with probit regression analysis on all 220 unique states in the study. We used results from the population health equivalence responses to anchor the results from the paired comparisons on the disability weight scale from 0 (implying no loss of health) to 1 (implying a health loss equivalent to death). Additionally, we compared new disability weights with those used in WHO's most recent update of the Global Burden of Disease Study for 2004. FINDINGS: 13,902 individuals participated in household surveys and 16,328 in the web survey. Analysis of paired comparison responses indicated a high degree of consistency across surveys: correlations between individual survey results and results from analysis of the pooled dataset were 0·9 or higher in all surveys except in Bangladesh (r=0·75). Most of the 220 disability weights were located on the mild end of the severity scale, with 58 (26%) having weights below 0·05. Five (11%) states had weights below 0·01, such as mild anaemia, mild hearing or vision loss, and secondary infertility. The health states with the highest disability weights were acute schizophrenia (0·76) and severe multiple sclerosis (0·71). We identified a broad pattern of agreement between the old and new weights (r=0·70), particularly in the moderate-to-severe range. However, in the mild range below 0·2, many states had significantly lower weights in our study than previously. INTERPRETATION: This study represents the most extensive empirical effort as yet to measure disability weights. By contrast with the popular hypothesis that disability assessments vary widely across samples with different cultural environments, we have reported strong evidence of highly consistent results. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation