Eugênio Vilaça Mendes

Bio: Eugênio Vilaça Mendes is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & Epidemiological transition. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 10 publications receiving 1109 citations.

As redes de atenção à saúde

Abstract: The demographic and epidemiologic transition resulting from aging and the increase of life expectation means an increment related to chronic conditions. The healthcare systems contemporary crisis is characterized by the organization of the focus on fragmented systems turned to the acute conditions care, in spite of the chronic conditions prevalence, and by the hierarchical structure without communication flow among the different health care levels. Brazil health care situation profile is now presenting a triple burden of diseases, due to the concomitant presence of infectious diseases, external causes and chronic diseases. The solution is to restore the consistence between the triple burden of diseases on the health situation and the current system of healthcare practice, with the implantation of health care networks. The conclusion is that there are evidences in the international literature on health care networks that these networks may improve the clinical quality, the sanitation results and the user's satisfaction and the reduction of healthcare systems costs.

O cuidado das condições crônicas na atenção primária à saúde

Abstract: Health conditions can be defined as circumstances in people’s health which are more or less persistent and which require reactive or proactive, episodic or continuous and fragmented or integrated social responses from health care systems, health professionals and health care users. The finding that the classic typology of communicable diseases and noncommunicable diseases cannot support the organization of health care systems led to the proposal of health conditions, which was developed in the late 1990s by scholars linked to the chronic care model(1,2) and then adopted by the World Health Organization(3). Knowing such conditions allows to know them better and thus be able to prevent possible diseases through health promotion strategies. The study of the typology of health conditions is based on the way health professionals, health care users and health care systems are engaged to respond socially to the demands, whether in a reactive, episodic and fragmented way, or in a proactive, continuous and integrated way. Such typology is mainly based on some key variables contained in the concept of health condition: the first refers to the duration of the health condition – short or long; the second is the way health professionals, health care systems and health care users fight such conditions – an episodic, reactive and fragmented approach focused on diseases and complaints or a continuous, proactive and integrated approach focused on people and families through more or less permanent care contained in a plan of care prepared by the health team and the users together. It should be noted that chronic condition is not the same as chronic disease. All chronic diseases (diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases, chronic musculoskeletal diseases, and others) are chronic conditions. But this concept also encompasses persistent infectious diseases (leprosy, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, certain viral hepatitis, and others), maternal and perinatal conditions (follow-up of pregnant women and perinatal, postpartum and newborn care); conditions linked to the maintenance of health throughout life cycles (child care, adolescent care and older person care); long-term mental disorders; continuous physical and structural disabilities (amputations, blindness, persistent motor deficits, and others); metabolic diseases; non-acute oral diseases; and health conditions characterized as illnesses, which refer to the way people perceive their disease, that is, the subjective response of individuals and/or their network of relationships to a particular disease(4,5). The model of care for acute events has failed to respond to health situations dominated by chronic conditions, which has led different countries and several institutions to seek models of care for chronic conditions. Several models of care for chronic conditions have been reported in the international literature(6). The most significant models are the chronic care model (CCM), the seminal model, and the risk pyramid model (RPM). The CCM, proposed in the United States of America(2), works best in public and universal health care systems(7) and is composed of six elements subdivided into two main fields: the health care system and the community. In the health care system, changes must be made to the organization of health care, to the service delivery system design, to decision support, to clinical information systems and to self-management support. In the community, the changes are centered on the integration between health care services and community resources. These six elements present interrelationships that allow the development of informed and active users and a prepared and proactive health team to produce better health and functional outcomes for the population. The second major international impact model, the risk pyramid model (RPM), is based on population risk stratification. This determines self-care and professional care intervention strategies. Professional care, depending on the risks, determines the clinic management technology to be used: health condition management or case management(8). International evidence on health care models and the uniqueness of the Unified Health System (Sistema Unico de Saude – SUS) led to the development of a chronic condition care model (CCCM) that could be applied to the Brazilian public health system(9). The basis of the CCCM is the CCM, but this model of origin has been expanded to incorporate two other models, the RPM and the model of social determinants of health(10), to adapt to the requirements of a public and universal health care system such as the SUS. The CCCM is built on three columns: one column features the total population divided into subpopulations by risk strata; another column features the different levels of social determinants of health: intermediate, proximal and individual determinants; and the third column features the five levels of health interventions on determinants and their populations: promotional interventions (level 1), preventive interventions (level 2) and clinic management interventions on established chronic conditions (levels 3, 4 and 5). With regard to its application in primary health care, a rigorous evaluation research was carried out in the municipality of Santo Antonio do Monte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. The intervention took place from June 2013 to December 2014 and focused on four target groups: individuals with hypertension, individuals with diabetes, pregnant women and children under two years old(11). The results of both the quantitative and qualitative analyses were very positive. Another evaluation showed positive effects of CCCM on the organization of a network of primary health care and specialized outpatient care(12). Given the relevance of this subject, the present issue of the Brazilian Journal in Health Promotion (Revista Brasileira em Promocao da Saude – RBPS) complements this dialog by featuring three original articles on chronic conditions in different contexts of Public Health and their impact on the life of patients. The main findings of these studies focus on: physical activity as a means of reducing cardiovascular risk in hypertensive older patients(13), the association of vitamin D deficiency and its consequences in patients with type 1 diabetes(14), and, finally, feelings of rejection, sadness and anguish arising from an unwanted pregnancy and the great impact on the psychological life of adolescents(15). RBPS fulfills, once again, the function of bringing to researchers and readers themes of great value and scientific interest in the health promotion field.

The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education

Abstract: the new economics for industry government education by is one of the most effective vendor books worldwide? Have you had it? Not at all? Foolish of you. Currently, you could get this fantastic book just here. Locate them is format of ppt, kindle, pdf, word, txt, rar, and also zip. Exactly how? Merely download and install and even check out online in this website. Currently, never ever late to read this the new economics for industry government education.

Cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care program for primary care patients with persistent depression

Abstract: OBJECTIVE The authors evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of stepped collaborative care for patients with persistent depressive symptoms after usual primary care management. METHOD Primary care patients initiating antidepressant treatment completed a standardized telephone assessment 6-8 weeks after the initial prescription. Those with persistent major depression or significant subthreshold depressive symptoms were randomly assigned to continued usual care or collaborative care. The collaborative care included systematic patient education, an initial visit with a consulting psychiatrist, 2-4 months of shared care by the psychiatrist and primary care physician, and monitoring of follow-up visits and adherence to medication regimen. Clinical outcomes were assessed through blinded telephone assessments at 1, 3, and 6 months. Health services utilization and costs were assessed through health plan claims and accounting data. RESULTS Patients receiving collaborative care experienced a mean of 16.7 additional depression-free days over 6 months. The mean incremental cost of depression treatment in this program was $357. The additional cost was attributable to greater expenditures for antidepressant prescriptions and outpatient visits. No offsetting decrease in use of other health services was observed. The incremental cost-effectiveness was $21.44 per depression-free day. CONCLUSIONS A stepped collaborative care program for depressed primary care patients led to substantial increases in treatment effectiveness and moderate increases in costs. These findings are consistent with those of other randomized trials. Improving outcomes of depression treatment in primary care requires investment of additional resources, but the return on this investment is comparable to that of many other widely accepted medical interventions.