Early intervention for bipolar disorder: current imperatives, future directions / Intervenção precoce no transtorno bipolar: necessidades atuais, rumos futuros

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to discuss the rationale/background for early intervention in bipolar disorder. METHOD: Narrative review. RESULTS: There are often significant delays before the diagnosis of bipolar disorder is made and effective management initiated. Growing evidence from both preclinical and clinical literature points to a clear need for improved early identification and early intervention in bipolar disorder. Increasing efforts are being applied to the identification of those at high risk of onset of bipolar disorder. It is hoped that identification of an early prodrome of illness will allow preventative measures to be taken. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear rationale for improved early identification and early intervention in bipolar disorder.

OBJETIVOS: O objetivo do artigo é discutir os fundamentos para a intervenção precoce no transtorno bipolar. MÉTODO: Revisão narrativa. RESULTADOS: Frequentemente existe um atraso significativo com relação ao momento em que o transtorno bipolar é detectado e o início do tratamento. Evidências crescentes oriundas de estudos pré-clínicos e clínicos apontam para a clara necessidade de melhorar a detecção e o tratamento precoces no transtorno bipolar. Esforços também tem sido direcionados para a identificação de indivíduos em alto risco. Espera-se que a identificação do pródromo do transtorno bipolar permita a instauração de medidas preventivas. CONCLUSÕES: Existem bases claras para o investimento na melhora da detecção e tratamento precoces do transtorno bipolar.

Os partidos dentro e fora do poder: a judicialização como resultado contingente da estratégia política / Political parties in and out of power in Brazil: judicialization as a contingent result of political strategy / Les partis dans et hors le pouvoir: la judicialisation comme résultat éventuel des stratégies politiques

The article analyzes the judicialization patterns in politics during the two terms of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2002) and compare them to the subsequent period of slightly less than a term and a half under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2008). The purpose of the comparison was to observe whether appeals were issued to the Supreme Court challenging Federal acts on grounds of unconstitutionality. Both differences were observed and some common uses of judicialization when comparing the two Presidential Administrations.

Dans cet article, on examine les modèles de recours en appel à la Cour Suprême de Justice employés par les hommes politiques pendant les deux mandats du président Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2002) et on les compare à la période suivante concernant le mandat et demi du président Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2008). On cherche à savoir si l'on trouve des différences dans la façon de faire appel à la Cour Suprême de Justice pour la contestation d'actes du pouvoir fédéral par le moyen de l'Action Directe d'Inconstitutionnalité. On a trouvé, à ce sujet, entre les deux gouvernements, des disparités mais aussi certains usages communs.

O judiciário e as políticas públicas no Brasil / The judiciary and public policies in Brazil

This article discusses the role of the Judiciary in public policymaking. The first part of the text summarizes the importance of integrating the courts better into our analyses of public policymaking and policy implementation in the Brazilian political system. The second part discusses the main factors influencing the degree and depth of the Judiciary's impact on public policies.

Dans cet article, on discute le rôle du pouvoir judiciaire dans la formulation de politiques publiques. Dans sa première partie, on montre l'importance de mettre en place une meilleure intégration des tribunaux à nos analyses du processus de formulation et d'implantation de politiques publiques dans le système politique brésilien. Dans la seconde, on juge les principaux facteurs qui influent sur le degré et la profondeur de l'impact du pouvoir judiciaire dans les politiques publiques.