Caminhos para a avaliação da formação em Odontologia: construção de modelo lógico e validação de critérios

Abstract

Resumo A universalização do acesso à saúde e a falência do modelo pedagógico centrado na mera transmissão de conhecimento tem levado a mudanças na formação de profissionais de saúde. O objetivo deste estudo foi proporcionar uma nova alternativa para avaliação de cursos de Odontologia, com base nas Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais (DCN) da área. Para isto, foi formulado um modelo lógico sobre o percurso necessário para a formação em saúde bucal, o que permitiu a construção de uma matriz de critérios, validada por meio da técnica de consenso Delfos, modificado com a participação de 33 “experts”. A matriz apresentou como dimensões a abordagem pedagógica, o perfil do egresso, a integração ensino-serviço e a orientação do cuidado em saúde. O detalhamento destas dimensões em subdimensões e critérios mensuráveis permitiu aprofundar elementos estruturantes das DCN, pouco explorados em outros estudos, sobre avaliação de cursos de graduação em Odontologia. O instrumento final proposto neste estudo representa alternativa diferenciada de avaliação da formação, tanto de cirurgiões-dentistas como de outros profissionais, considerando que as DCN de todos os cursos da área da saúde preveem a formação com foco nas necessidades de saúde da população, integrada ao SUS e baseada na aprendizagem centrada no estudante.

The use of the Delphi Method adjusted to evaluate the Stork Network: from Image-objective to Reality

“…The objective-based method for evaluating the Stork Network at the Macro Regional level applied at the Consensus Conference with experts (judges) through the Adjusted Delphi Method 35,37 fills a knowledge gap from this perspective of peer judgment for SN evaluation. The instruments used proved to be appropriate to the complex situation, when unstructured problems related to intergovernmental network service programs can be better evaluated by specialists.…”

“…This Matrix was composed by dimensions 30 , oriented by the final objectives, and proximal and distal fundamentals 31 , to make a judgment of the components of the SN strategy, by means of consensus measurement through the use of the Delphi Method [25][26][27] . An adaptation called the Adjusted Delphi Method was selected, as it was based on the inclusion of at least one round of in-person discussion [32][33][34][35] , through the combination with the application of the Consensus Conference Technique 36 , in a third Delphi moment, to evaluate the Degree of Implantation (GI, acronym in Portuguese) of SN in the Macro-Regional Health III.…”

“…In a Delphi Group, the most important is the balance of participation, rather than size, represented by the myriad points of view, expertise and interests in the context 25 . Studies indicate that the number between 10 and 18 specialists is the most adequate to develop the Method [33][34][35] . Experience with this method suggests caution in inviting more members than expected in the scenario of individuals, as there may be withdrawals 33,34 .…”

“…The After receiving the answers, the Means (M) and the Standard Deviations (SD) of the score were calculated to assess the importance attributed to the fundamentals, in order to verify the Consensus Degree of the Matrix among the opinions of the selected experts 35,36 .…”

“…The fundamentals were analyzed according to the importance attributed, using the following classification of the Mean points obtained 36 The following cut-off points were established for the fundamentals 35 : (a) With a mean of lower than 7, it would not be part of the objective image for the SN evaluation at the macro-regional level; (b) with an SD lower than 3, it would be considered consensual and if it was classified as important, it should be included in the objective image; and, (c) with a mean equal to or greater than 7, and SD greater than or equal to 3, although important, it should not be included in the Objective Image because it would not be consensual.…”