2018
DOI: 10.31744/einstein_journal/2018ed4811
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What is the future of the Brazilian Public Health System?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
3

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
(5 reference statements)
0
6
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…A review of false negatives did not reveal any case of severe NPDR or proliferative DR. We believe that high sensitivity and the setting of mtmDR as the cutoff point allows safe use in a screening strategy (Figure 3); the sensitivity reached by the current algorithm compares well with previous reports. 4,13,14 Implementation and maintenance of DR screening programs worldwide are challenged by financial and workforce constraints; 6 under-resourced health systems, particularly in low-to middle-income countries that face severe worker and infrastructure shortages, 15,16 need rational and cost-effective strategies to deal with the increasing demand brought by growing global prevalence of diabetes mellitus and to overcome social and economic barriers; telemedicine and AI have been established as successful and cost-effective strategies for DR screening, 6,17 helping increase program coverage and assisting in the detection of vtDR. 15 The high sensitivity found in the present study also allows for a semiautomated strategy, with algorithmic assistance increasing efficiency of non-specialist clinicians to diagnose at scale and reducing the workload of the specialist in a high burden setting, as it directs attention to concerning features consistently across large data sets, for example, through heatmaps (Figure 1).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A review of false negatives did not reveal any case of severe NPDR or proliferative DR. We believe that high sensitivity and the setting of mtmDR as the cutoff point allows safe use in a screening strategy (Figure 3); the sensitivity reached by the current algorithm compares well with previous reports. 4,13,14 Implementation and maintenance of DR screening programs worldwide are challenged by financial and workforce constraints; 6 under-resourced health systems, particularly in low-to middle-income countries that face severe worker and infrastructure shortages, 15,16 need rational and cost-effective strategies to deal with the increasing demand brought by growing global prevalence of diabetes mellitus and to overcome social and economic barriers; telemedicine and AI have been established as successful and cost-effective strategies for DR screening, 6,17 helping increase program coverage and assisting in the detection of vtDR. 15 The high sensitivity found in the present study also allows for a semiautomated strategy, with algorithmic assistance increasing efficiency of non-specialist clinicians to diagnose at scale and reducing the workload of the specialist in a high burden setting, as it directs attention to concerning features consistently across large data sets, for example, through heatmaps (Figure 1).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of note is the previous lack of experience of the trained team, as previous reports have presented high-quality rates obtained with experienced personnel [1,15,16]. The sustainability and cost-effectiveness of screening programs are also fundamental for its implementation and success; to the best of our knowledge, ours is the first report on the performance of low-cost, portable handheld devices for DR screening in an urban setting in Brazil, a continent-sized country with very heterogeneous socioeconomic realities and an uneven distribution of ophthalmologists [17], home to the fifth biggest diabetic population in the world [18] and also to the largest public free and chronically underfinanced healthcare system [19]. Multiple socioeconomic barriers prevent access to eye examination in the poor regions of Brazil [3].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…8 No Brasil, o custo em saúde por pessoa é de 947,00 dólares. 9,16 A grande diferença entre os sistemas é a forte presença do investimento privado português, especialmente por meio de copagamentos dos pacientes com medicamentos, exames e consultas (quase 25% dos gastos do SNS). 8 Essas taxas moderadoras são pagamentos complementares e estão isentas para até 60% da população, contanto que os pacientes apresentem justificativas, como desemprego ou gravidez.…”
Section: B) Eixos Estruturantes E a Importância Da Atenção Primária à Saúdeunclassified
“…8 No SUS, apesar do PIB investido em saúde, apenas 47% é direcionado ao setor público. 16,17 Essa alocação de recursos deficiente contribui com a existência de serviços públicos insatisfatórios. Assim, as famílias procuram serviços privados de forma complementar ao SUS, gerando importantes despesas financeiras.…”
Section: Fragilidadesunclassified