Objective: To report the results of a workshop regarding asthma management programs and centers (AMPCs) in Brazil, so that they can be used as a tool for the improvement and advancement of current and future AMPCs. Methods: The workshop consisted of five presentations and the corresponding group discussions. The working groups discussed the following themes: implementation of asthma management strategies; human resources needed for AMPCs; financial resources needed for AMPCs; and operational maintenance of AMPCs. Results: The workshop involved 39 participants, from all regions of the country, representing associations of asthma patients (n = 3), universities (n = 7), and AMPCs (n = 29). We found a direct relationship between a lack of planning and the failure of AMPCs. Based on the experiences reported during the workshop, the common assumptions about AMPCs in Brazil were the importance of raising awareness of managers; greater community participation; interdependence between primary care and specialized care; awareness of regionalization; and use of medications available in the public health system. Conclusions: Brazil already has a core of experience in the area of asthma management programs. The implementation of strategies for the management of chronic respiratory disease and their incorporation into health care system protocols would seem to be a natural progression. However, there is minimal experience in this area. Joint efforts by individuals with expertise in AMPCs could promote the implementation of asthma management strategies, thus speeding the creation of treatment networks, which might have a multiplier effect, precluding the need for isolated centers to start from zero.
Background: Criteria of asthma severity and control lack standardization. Objective: to compare classifications of asthma severity and control, applied to patients from a severe asthma clinic. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 473 patients followed up for ≥6 months, reclassified using three criteria: 1) the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010, 2) the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2000, and 3) the European Respiratory Society (ERS)/ATS 2014. In order to evaluate disease control, the 2012 and 2014 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) classifications were compared. Results: According to the definition of WHO 2010, 429 had Difficult-to-treat severe asthma and only 12 presented Treatment-resistant severe asthma. 114 patients had Refractory asthma by ATS 2000 and 88 had Severe asthma by ERS/ATS 2014. Considering the definitions of WHO 2010, only 9 out of 12 with Treatment-resistant and 64 out of 429 with Difficult-to-treat severe asthma met the criteria of ATS 2000 and ERS/ATS 2014. As for GINA classification of control, 208 (44%) of the 473 subjects were classified as having asthma controlled by the 2014 criteria, whereas only 45 (10%) patients had controlled asthma by the GINA 2012 criteria. The Kappa statistic indicates the highest agreement of the severity classification occurred between the criteria of ATS 2000 and ERS/ATS 2014 (0.64).
Considerando as novas diretrizes curriculares da educação médica, há necessidade de humanizar a prática médica, sendo importante discutir a relação paciente-aluno de Medicina. O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar as percepções dos pacientes internados em hospital-escola durante as aulas práticas do módulo de Habilidades Médicas V (Semiologia/Clínica Médica) do curso de Medicina da Universidade de Fortaleza. Foi realizado um estudo transversal, com aplicação de um questionário que abordou questões socioeconômicas, diagnóstico, tempo de internação e percepções dos pacientes sobre sua participação nas aulas práticas com a presença de estudantes de Medicina. A maioria dos pacientes aceita de maneira satisfatória participar das aulas práticas e sente-se bem em ajudar os futuros médicos.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.