Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 8 de 8
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BJU Int ; 131(2): 253-261, 2023 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35974700

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness, resource use implications, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost per QALY of care pathways starting with either extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or with ureteroscopic retrieval (ureteroscopy [URS]) for the management of ureteric stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on quality of life and resource use for 613 patients, collected prospectively in the Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU) randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 92289221), were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of two care pathways, SWL and URS. A health provider (UK National Health Service) perspective was adopted to estimate the costs of the interventions and subsequent resource use. Quality-of-life data were calculated using a generic instrument, the EuroQol EQ-5D-3L. Results are expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The mean QALY difference (SWL vs URS) was -0.021 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.033 to -0.010) and the mean cost difference was -£809 (95% CI -£1061 to -£551). The QALY difference translated into approximately 10 more healthy days over the 6-month period for the patients on the URS care pathway. The probabaility that SWL is cost-effective is 79% at a society's willingness to pay (WTP) threshold for 1 QALY of £30,000 and 98% at a WTP threshold of £20,000. CONCLUSION: The SWL pathway results in lower QALYs than URS but costs less. The incremental cost per QALY is £39 118 cost saving per QALY lost, with a 79% probability that SWL would be considered cost-effective at a WTP threshold for 1 QALY of £30 000 and 98% at a WTP threshold of £20 000. Decision-makers need to determine if costs saved justify the loss in QALYs.


Assuntos
Litotripsia , Ureteroscopia , Adulto , Humanos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Qualidade de Vida , Medicina Estatal , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
2.
Trials ; 23(1): 630, 2022 Aug 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35927733

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Various washout policies are widely used in adults living with long-term catheters (LTC). There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefits and potential harms of prophylactic LTC washout policies in the prevention of blockages and other LTC-related adverse events, such as urinary tract infections. CATHETER II tests the hypothesis that weekly prophylactic LTC washouts (normal saline or citric acid) in addition to standard LTC care reduce the incidence of catheter blockage requiring intervention compared to standard LTC care only in adults living with LTC. METHODS: CATHETER II is a pragmatic three-arm open multi-centre superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic analysis, and embedded qualitative study. Eligible participants are adults aged ≥ 18 years, who have had a LTC in use for ≥ 28 days, have no plans to discontinue the use of the catheter, are able to undertake the catheter washouts, and complete trial documentation or have a carer able to help them. Participants are identified from general practitioner practices, secondary/tertiary care, community healthcare, care homes, and via public advertising strategies. Participants are randomised 1:1:1 to receive a weekly saline (0.9%) washout in addition to standard LTC care, a weekly citric acid (3.23%) washout in addition to standard LTC care or standard LTC care only. Participants and/or carers will receive training to administer the washouts. Patient-reported outcomes are collected at baseline and for 24 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is catheter blockage requiring intervention up to 24 months post-randomisation expressed per 1000 catheter days. Secondary outcomes include symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics, catheter change, adverse events, NHS/ healthcare use, and impact on quality of life. DISCUSSION: This study will guide treatment decision-making and clinical practice guidelines regarding the effectiveness of various prophylactic catheter washout policies in men and women living with LTC. This research has received ethical approval from Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 (19/WA/0015). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN17116445 . Registered prospectively on 06 November 2019.


Assuntos
Infecções Relacionadas a Cateter , Análise Custo-Benefício , Cateterismo Urinário , Infecções Urinárias , Adulto , Infecções Relacionadas a Cateter/prevenção & controle , Cateteres de Demora/efeitos adversos , Ácido Cítrico , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Políticas , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Cateterismo Urinário/efeitos adversos , Infecções Urinárias/prevenção & controle
3.
Health Technol Assess ; 26(19): 1-70, 2022 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35301982

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease affects 2-3% of the general population. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain and can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. Most ureteric stones are expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care; however, between one-fifth and one-third of patients require an active intervention. The two standard interventions are shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic stone treatment. Both treatments are effective, but they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, number of procedures, complications, patient-reported outcomes and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the more clinically effective and cost-effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine if shockwave lithotripsy is clinically effective and cost-effective compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active intervention. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial of shockwave lithotripsy as a first-line treatment option compared with primary ureteroscopic stone treatment for ureteric stones. SETTING: Urology departments in 25 NHS hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years presenting with a single ureteric stone in any segment of the ureter, confirmed by computerised tomography, who were able to undergo either shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopic stone treatment and to complete trial procedures. INTERVENTION: Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 to shockwave lithotripsy (up to two sessions) or ureteroscopic stone treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome measure was resolution of the stone episode (stone clearance), which was operationally defined as 'no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance' up to 6 months from randomisation. This was determined from 8-week and 6-month case report forms and any additional hospital visit case report form that was completed by research staff. The primary economic outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months from randomisation. We estimated costs from NHS resources and calculated quality-adjusted life-years from participant completion of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at baseline, pre intervention, 1 week post intervention and 8 weeks and 6 months post randomisation. RESULTS: In the shockwave lithotripsy arm, 67 out of 302 (22.2%) participants needed further treatment. In the ureteroscopic stone treatment arm, 31 out of 302 (10.3%) participants needed further treatment. The absolute risk difference was 11.4% (95% confidence interval 5.0% to 17.8%); the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval ruled out the prespecified margin of non-inferiority (which was 20%). The mean quality-adjusted life-year difference (shockwave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopic stone treatment) was -0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.033 to -0.010) and the mean cost difference was -£809 (95% confidence interval -£1061 to -£551). The probability that shockwave lithotripsy is cost-effective is 79% at a threshold of society's willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year of £30,000. The CEAC is derived from the joint distribution of incremental costs and incremental effects. Most of the results fall in the south-west quadrant of the cost effectiveness plane as SWL always costs less but is less effective. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the trial was low return and completion rates of patient questionnaires. The study was initially powered for 500 patients in each arm; however, the total number of patients recruited was only 307 and 306 patients in the ureteroscopic stone treatment and shockwave lithotripsy arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving shockwave lithotripsy needed more further interventions than those receiving primary ureteroscopic retrieval, although the overall costs for those receiving the shockwave treatment were lower. The absolute risk difference between the two clinical pathways (11.4%) was lower than expected and at a level that is acceptable to clinicians and patients. The shockwave lithotripsy pathway is more cost-effective in an NHS setting, but results in lower quality of life. FUTURE WORK: (1) The generic health-related quality-of-life tools used in this study do not fully capture the impact of the various treatment pathways on patients. A condition-specific health-related quality-of-life tool should be developed. (2) Reporting of ureteric stone trials would benefit from agreement on a core outcome set that would ensure that future trials are easier to compare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN92289221. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Approximately 1 in 20 people suffers from kidney stones that pass down the urine drainage tube (ureter) into the urinary bladder and cause episodes of severe pain (ureteric colic). People with ureteric colic attend hospital for pain relief and diagnosis. Although most stones smaller than 10 mm eventually reach the bladder and are passed during urination, some get stuck and have to be removed using telescopic surgery (called ureteroscopic stone treatment) or shockwave therapy (called shockwave lithotripsy). Ureteroscopic stone treatment involves passing a telescope-containing instrument through the bladder and into the ureter to fragment and/or remove the stone. This is usually carried out under general anaesthetic as a day case. For shockwave lithotripsy, the patient lies flat on a couch and the apparatus underneath them generates shockwaves that pass through the skin to the ureter and break the stones into smaller fragments, which can be passed naturally in the urine. This involves using X-ray or ultrasound to locate the stone, but can be carried out on an outpatient basis and without general anaesthetic. Telescopic surgery is known to be more successful at removing stones after just one treatment, but it requires more time in hospital and has a higher risk of complications than shockwave lithotripsy (however, shockwave lithotripsy may require more than one session of treatment). Our study, the Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter trial, was designed to establish if treatment for ureteric colic should start with telescopic surgery or shockwave therapy. Over 600 NHS patients took part and they were split into two groups. Each patient had an equal chance of their treatment starting with either telescopic surgery or shockwave lithotripsy, which was decided by a computer program (via random allocation). We counted how many patients in each group had further procedures to remove their stone. We found that telescopic surgery was 11% more effective overall, with an associated slightly better quality of life (10 more healthy days over the 6-month period), but was more expensive in an NHS setting. The finding of a lack of any significant additional clinical benefit leads to the conclusion that the more cost-effective treatment pathway is shockwave lithotripsy with telescopic surgery used only in those patients in whom shockwave lithotripsy is unsuccessful.


Assuntos
Litotripsia , Cálculos Urinários , Adulto , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Humanos , Litotripsia/efeitos adversos , Litotripsia/métodos , Masculino , Qualidade de Vida , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Ureteroscopia/efeitos adversos , Ureteroscopia/métodos , Cálculos Urinários/etiologia
4.
Eur Urol Oncol ; 5(2): 153-163, 2022 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34785188

RESUMO

CONTEXT: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer among men worldwide. Urinary, bowel, and sexual function, as well as hormonal symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), were prioritised by patients and professionals as part of a core outcome set for localised PCa regardless of treatment type. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in localised PCa and recommend PROMs for use in routine practice and research settings. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The psychometric properties of PROMs measuring functional and HRQoL domains used in randomised controlled trials including patients with localised PCa were assessed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify publications evaluating psychometric properties of the PROMs. The characteristics and methodological quality of the studies included were extracted, tabulated, and assessed according to the COSMIN criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 27 studies evaluating psychometric properties of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life core 30 (QLQ-C30) and prostate cancer 25 (QLQ-PR25) modules, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and the 36-item (SF-36) and 12-item Short-Form health survey (SF-12) PROMs were identified and included in the systematic review. EPIC and EORTC QLQ-C30, a general module that assesses patients' physical, psychological, and social functions, were characterised by high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.46-0.96 and 0.68-0.94 respectively) but low content validity. EORTC QLQ-PR25, which is primarily designed to assess PCa-specific HRQoL, had moderate content validity and internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.39-0.87). UCLA-PCI was characterised by moderate content validity and high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.21-0.94). However, it does not directly assess hormonal symptoms, whereas EORTC QLQ-PR25 does. CONCLUSION: The tools with the best evidence for psychometric properties and feasibility for use in routine practice and research settings to assess PROMs in patients with localised PCa were EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25. Since EORTC QLQ-C30 is a general module that does not directly assess PCa-specific issues, it should be adopted in conjunction with the QLQ-PR25 module. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed and appraised the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measure questionnaires used for patients with localised prostate cancer. We found good evidence to suggest that two questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25) can be used to measure urinary, bowel, and sexual functions and health-related quality of life.


Assuntos
Intervenção Coronária Percutânea , Neoplasias da Próstata , Humanos , Masculino , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Próstata/psicologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Psicometria , Qualidade de Vida/psicologia
5.
Trials ; 19(1): 286, 2018 May 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29788982

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease is very common with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2-3%. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain as they pass through the urinary tract and have significant impact on patients' quality of life due to the detrimental effect on their ability to work and need for hospitalisation. Most ureteric stones can be expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care. However, between one-fifth and one-third of cases require an intervention. The two standard active intervention options are extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic stone retrieval. ESWL and ureteroscopy are effective in terms of stone clearance; however, they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, complications, patient-reported outcomes (e.g. pain after intervention, time off work) and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the most clinically effective in terms of stone clearance and the true cost to the NHS and to society (in terms of impact on patient-reported health and economic burden). The aim of this trial is to determine whether, in adults with ureteric stones, judged to require active intervention, ESWL is not inferior and is more cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management option. METHODS: The TISU study is a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of ESWL as the first treatment option compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment for ureteric stones. Patients aged over 16 years with a ureteric stone confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) will be randomised to either ESWL or ureteroscopy. The primary clinical outcome is resolution of the stone episode (no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance) up to six months from randomisation. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at six months from randomisation. DISCUSSION: Determining whether ESWL is not inferior clinically and is cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active treatment is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, both in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN92289221 . Registered on 21 February 2013.


Assuntos
Litotripsia/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Cálculos Ureterais/terapia , Ureteroscopia/métodos , Adulto , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Litotripsia/efeitos adversos , Litotripsia/economia , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Tamanho da Amostra , Ureteroscopia/efeitos adversos , Ureteroscopia/economia
6.
Health Technol Assess ; 19(49): 1-490, 2015 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26140518

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: For people with localised prostate cancer, active treatments are effective but have significant side effects. Minimally invasive treatments that destroy (or ablate) either the entire gland or the part of the prostate with cancer may be as effective and cause less side effects at an acceptable cost. Such therapies include cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and brachytherapy, among others. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies compared with radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and active surveillance (AS) for primary treatment of localised prostate cancer, and compared with RP for salvage treatment of localised prostate cancer which has recurred after initial treatment with EBRT. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946 to March week 3, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (29 March 2013), EMBASE (1974 to week 13, 2013), Bioscience Information Service (BIOSIS) (1956 to 1 April 2013), Science Citation Index (1970 to 1 April 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 3, 2013), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (issue 3, 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (inception to March 2013) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (inception to March 2013) databases were searched. Costs were obtained from NHS sources. REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was drawn from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, and from case series for the ablative procedures only, in people with localised prostate cancer. For primary therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy, HIFU, brachytherapy and other ablative therapies. The comparators were AS, RP and EBRT. For salvage therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy and HIFU. The comparator was RP. Outcomes were cancer related, adverse effects (functional and procedural) and quality of life. Two reviewers extracted data and carried out quality assessment. Meta-analysis used a Bayesian indirect mixed-treatment comparison. Data were incorporated into an individual simulation Markov model to estimate cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The searches identified 121 studies for inclusion in the review of patients undergoing primary treatment and nine studies for the review of salvage treatment. Cryotherapy [3995 patients; 14 case series, 1 RCT and 4 non-randomised comparative studies (NRCSs)], HIFU (4000 patients; 20 case series, 1 NRCS) and brachytherapy (26,129 patients; 2 RCTs, 38 NRCSs) studies provided limited data for meta-analyses. All studies were considered at high risk of bias. There was no robust evidence that mortality (4-year survival 93% for cryotherapy, 99% for HIFU, 91% for EBRT) or other cancer-specific outcomes differed between treatments. For functional and quality-of-life outcomes, the paucity of data prevented any definitive conclusions from being made, although data on incontinence rates and erectile dysfunction for all ablative procedures were generally numerically lower than for non-ablative procedures. The safety profiles were comparable with existing treatments. Studies reporting the use of focal cryotherapy suggested that incontinence rates may be better than for whole-gland treatment. Data on AS, salvage treatment and other ablative therapies were too limited. The cost-effectiveness analysis confirmed the uncertainty from the clinical review and that there is no technology which appears superior, on the basis of current evidence, in terms of average cost-effectiveness. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that a number of ablative techniques are worthy of further research. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available on cancer-related outcomes and dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that there is insufficient evidence to form any clear recommendations on the use of ablative therapies in order to influence current clinical practice. Research efforts in the use of ablative therapies in the management of prostate cancer should now be concentrated on the performance of RCTs and the generation of standardised outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002461. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.


Assuntos
Técnicas de Ablação , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Medicina Estatal/economia , Técnicas de Ablação/efeitos adversos , Técnicas de Ablação/economia , Técnicas de Ablação/métodos , Técnicas de Ablação/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Análise Custo-Benefício , Bases de Dados Bibliográficas , Disfunção Erétil/etiologia , Humanos , Incidência , Efeitos Adversos de Longa Duração , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/epidemiologia , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/economia , Prevalência , Prognóstico , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangue , Neoplasias da Próstata/economia , Neoplasias da Próstata/epidemiologia , Análise de Sobrevida , Reino Unido , Incontinência Urinária/etiologia
7.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health ; 86(6): 657-66, 2013 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22836937

RESUMO

PURPOSE: There is limited research on teachers' psychosocial work environment and mental health, and most has been conducted in predominantly Western countries that share a number of important common characteristics that distinguish them from countries in many other regions of the world. Within the framework of the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) theoretical model, the relationship between the psychosocial work environment and mental health of teachers in the United Kingdom (UK) and Hong Kong (HK) was investigated. METHODS: Full-time qualified teachers from both the UK and HK (N = 259) participated in the research. They were asked to fill in a set of questionnaires that measured their perceived stress, mental health, psychosocial work environment and demographic information. RESULTS: Perceived stress was found to predict teachers' mental health. Overcommitment, the intrinsic component of the ERI model, predicted mental health among HK teachers. There were significant differences in the psychosocial variables between UK and HK teachers. CONCLUSION: The results showed support for the ERI model and in particular for the relationship between stress and mental health and demonstrated the role of overcommitment in the teaching profession. Some implications are discussed for combating cultural differences in managing the psychosocial work environment of teachers.


Assuntos
Emprego/psicologia , Docentes/estatística & dados numéricos , Satisfação no Emprego , Saúde Mental/estatística & dados numéricos , Saúde Ocupacional/estatística & dados numéricos , Local de Trabalho/psicologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Feminino , Hong Kong , Humanos , Relações Interpessoais , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fatores Socioeconômicos , Estresse Psicológico , Inquéritos e Questionários , Reino Unido , Adulto Jovem
8.
Health Policy ; 103(2-3): 266-75, 2011 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21831472

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: It is widely acknowledged that teachers are suffering from work-related health problems. However, the implementation of relevant occupational safety and health (OSH) policies is complex and under-studied. This study reviews key legislation of relevance to psychosocial health and explores stakeholders' perceptions on their implementation in Hong Kong (HK) schools. METHODS: The content of OSH legislation applicable to psychosocial health was systematically reviewed by the modified WHO checklist on legislation. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted with 38 key stakeholders. These were transcribed and subjected to Framework Analysis. RESULTS: The review showed that there were several ambiguities in the legislation and the interviews found that awareness and understanding in relation to OSH issues and policies differed on the basis of the level of implementation bodies. The importance of management, trust, communication and interpersonal relationships was emphasised. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the study it is concluded that implementation of psychosocial health policies in HK schools is poor and there appears to be a gap among stakeholder communication. Also, the content of these policies needs to be clarified so that it can be more conducive to implementation in practice. The improvement of OSH climate and social capital could foster a more effective implementation of OSH policies.


Assuntos
Atitude Frente a Saúde , Docentes , Política de Saúde , Serviços de Saúde do Trabalhador , Instituições Acadêmicas/organização & administração , Adulto , Hong Kong , Humanos , Relações Interpessoais , Entrevistas como Assunto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Doenças Profissionais/prevenção & controle , Serviços de Saúde do Trabalhador/legislação & jurisprudência , Serviços de Saúde do Trabalhador/organização & administração , Formulação de Políticas , Psicologia , Instituições Acadêmicas/legislação & jurisprudência
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA