Pontos de cultura, particularidades na gestão?: um estudo na primeira capital brasileira da cultura

O lançamento de um programa do Governo Federal com uma proposta abrangente de gestão compartilhada e transformadora para organizações culturais, e os desafios encontrados por estas entidades em se relacionar com o proponente, despertou a curiosidade em se verificar a existência de influência deste na gestão das organizações denominadas Pontos de Cultura, uma vez que as discussões nesse campo dos estudos organizacionais crescem ao decorrer dos anos, principalmente as pautadas na ruptura com o modelo burocrático. Assim a pesquisa às organizações analisadas foi fundamentada na categoria graus de burocratização A dimensão graus de burocratização foi encontrada em coeficientes de desenvolvimento diferentes. As conclusões demonstram que os perfis das organizações pesquisadas são diferenciados e que em uma percebe-se o risco de uma mudança na sua lógica de ação original, haja vista o cálculo utilitário permear as conseqüências de sua sobrevivência. E a outra a tendência a total adesão ao modelo burocrático de gestão. Conclui-se ainda que existe influência do Programa nas categorias analisadas, contudo não é visível uma ruptura com a burocracia como este se propõe

Segurança Hídrica, Riscos e Conflitos na Instalação de Usinas Hidrelétricas: A Experiência de Comunidades Vulneráveis na Amazônia / Water Security, Risks and Conflicts in the Installation of Hydroelectric Plants: the Experience of Vulnerable Communities in the Amazon Region

A noção de Segurança Hídrica tem sido comumente adotada como a disponibilidade de água segura para pessoas, ecossistemas e iniciativa econômica. Neste âmbito, a dimensão dos conflitos tem sido emergente na Amazônia, em especial entre poder público, usinas hidrelétricas, comunidades e defensores dos ecossistemas, no qual o lado mais prejudicado é quase sempre o dos mais vulneráveis. O objetivo central deste trabalho é analisar experiências de indígenas e ribeirinhos, no contexto da segurança hídrica, riscos e conflitos decorrentes da instalação de usinas hidrelétricas na Amazônia. A abordagem e o método utilizados são de inspiração fenomenológica, cujo objeto são os sentidos atribuídos à experiência vivida. Como fontes de evidência, foram investigados 16 estudos acadêmicos sobre os impactos das hidrelétricas nas experiências de comunidades indígenas e ribeirinhas, no contexto da segurança e do risco. Os resultados nos mostram que no processo de instalação de usinas hidrelétricas os territórios indígenas e das comunidades ribeirinhas vivenciam um processo de violência similar ao período de ocupação portuguesa, resultando em um sentido de morte na capacidade de reprodução sociocultural dos vulneráveis, o que finda por gerar ao país uma perda irreparável em seu patrimônio imaterial.

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake