Determinação ou determinantes sociais da saúde: texto e contexto na américa latina / Social determination or social determinants of health: text and context in latin america / Determinación o determinantes sociales de la salud: texto y contexto en américa latina

Resumo Determinação social da saúde e determinantes sociais da saúde têm se apresentado como sinônimos em um contexto de retomada do tema. A concepção de determinação e determinantes e a historicidade desses modelos teóricos transcende o plano acadêmico, ao se considerar a particularidade envolvendo saúde pública, saúde coletiva e medicina social, em que ciência e política se relacionam estreitamente. Ao se delinearem diferenças entre essas denominações, procura-se neste ensaio recuperar, no plano teórico, a elaboração de determinação social da saúde, destacando sua relação com o conhecimento produzido na América Latina e sua repercussão no Brasil, bem como as influências dos paradigmas científicos, epistemológicos, arcabouços teóricos e projetos em disputa nesse campo. Para abranger dimensões políticas e acadêmicas que os modelos teóricos comportam, recorremos ao auxílio de autores que transitam entre diferentes campos de conhecimento. Sem a pretensão de esgotar todos os possíveis pontos de contemplação que nossa incursão proporcionou, apresentamos uma síntese de nossa concepção do modelo teórico de determinantes sociais da saúde e sobretudo de determinação social da saúde, que propomos desmembrar em duas categorias, determinação estrutural e determinação estrutural-relacional, para, ao enfatizar epistemologicamente a complexidade, permitir melhor contemplação de avanços teóricos e metodológicos.

Abstract The social determination of health and the social determinants of health have been presented as synonyms in a context in which this topic is being revisited. The conception of determination and determinants and the historicity of these theoretical models transcend the academic realm, once we consider the particularity involving public health, collective health, and social medicine, in which science and politics have a close relationship. Through the description of the differences between these two terms, our aim in this essay was to bring back, in theory, the elaboration of the social determination of health, highlighting its relationship with the knowledge produced in Latin America and its repercussions in Brazil, as well as the influences of the scientific and epistemological paradigms, the set of theories, and the projects that are in dispute in this field. In order to encompass the academic and political dimensions contained in the theoretical models, we sought the help of authors that move among different fields of knowledge. Without the intention of covering all of the points of observation that our incursion provided, we present a summary of our conception of the theoretical model of the social determinants of health and, chiefly, of the social determination of health, which we suggest should be divided into two categories, structural determination and structural-relational determination, in order to enable a better observation of the theoretical and methodological improvements, by emphasizing complexity epistemologically.

Resumen La determinación social de la salud y los determinantes sociales de la salud se han presentado como sinónimos en un contexto de reanudación del tema. La concepción de determinación y determinantes, y la historicidad de estos modelos teóricos, transcienden el plano académico, al considerarse la particularidad que implica salud pública, salud colectiva y medicina social, en donde ciencia y política están estrechamente relacionadas. Al establecerse diferencias entre éstas denominaciones, en este ensayo se busca recuperar, en el plano teórico, el desarrollo de la determinación social de la salud, destacando su relación con el conocimiento producido en América Latina y su repercusión en Brasil, así como las influencias de los paradigmas científicos, epistemológicos, marcos teóricos y proyectos en disputa en este campo. Para abarcar dimensiones políticas y académicas que los modelos teóricos comportan, recurrimos a la ayuda de autores que transitan entre diferentes campos de conocimiento. Sin la pretensión de agotar todos los posibles puntos de vista que nuestra incursión proporciona, presentamos una síntesis de nuestra concepción del modelo teórico de determinantes sociales de la salud y principalmente de la determinación social de la misma, que proponemos desmembrar en dos categorías, determinación estructural y determinación estructural-relacional, de manera que al enfatizar epistemológicamente la complejidad, permita una mejor visión de los avances teóricos y metodológicos.

Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the proportion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in top infertility journals indexed on PubMed that reported their results with proper effect estimates and their precision estimation, while correctly interpreting both measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study evaluating all the RCTs published in top infertility journals during 2014. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Not applicable. INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Proportion of RCTs that reported both relative and absolute effect size measures and its precision. RESULT(S): Among the 32 RCTs published in 2014 in the top infertility journals reviewed, 37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.1-56.3) did not mention in their abstracts whether the difference among the study arms was statistically or clinically significant, and only 6.3% (95% CI, 0.8-20.8) used a CI of the absolute difference. Similarly, in the results section, these elements were observed in 28.2% (95% CI, 13.7-46.7) and 15.6% (95% CI, 5.3-32.8), respectively. Only one study clearly expressed the minimal clinically important difference in their methods section, but we found related proxies in 53% (95% CI, 34.7-70.9). None of the studies used CIs to draw conclusions about the clinical or statistical significance. We found 13 studies where the interpretation of the findings could be misleading. CONCLUSION(S): Recommended reporting items are underused in top infertility journals, which could lead to misleading interpretations. Authors, reviewers, and editorial boards should emphasize their use to improve reporting quality.