ABSTRACT
For 15 years, from 2001, we began to apply Heberprot-P®, an injectable Epidermal Growth Factor (0.75 µg) created in the Center of Biotechnology, in Havana, Cuba. More than 159,000 patients were treated around the world, from 25 countries, with, with only 9-11% high-level amputations. In this paper, we discuss our experience in the treatment of the most complex diabetic foot ulcers cases for the last 15 years.
Subject(s)
Diabetic Foot , Epidermal Growth Factor , Wound Healing/drug effects , Administration, Topical , Anti-Ulcer Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Ulcer Agents/adverse effects , Cuba , Diabetic Foot/diagnosis , Diabetic Foot/therapy , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Administration Schedule , Drug Monitoring/methods , Epidermal Growth Factor/administration & dosage , Epidermal Growth Factor/adverse effects , Humans , Injections, Intralesional , Recombinant Proteins , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The opinions of Brazilian women regarding vaginal delivery and cesarean sections was studied. METHODS: Six hundred and fifty-six women who had given birth in seven hospitals in São Paulo and Pernambuco, using the Public Health Service, were interviewed. The opinions of women who had delivered only by cesarean section was compared with those of women who had had at least one vaginal delivery. RESULTS: Significantly more women who had experienced at least one vaginal delivery considered this to be the best way of giving birth (90.4% vs. 75.9% among C-section-only women). Similar proportions in both groups (45.5% and 42.8%) stated that vaginal labor is better because it causes less pain and suffering for the woman. Significantly more women who had experienced a vaginal labor (47.1% vs. 30.3%) reported that it had no disadvantage. More women who had only had cesarean sections referred not having contractions/pain as an advantage of this method (56.7% vs. 41.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Apparently, pain and women's perception of pain were the characteristics which differentiated women with history of vaginal delivery from those with cesarean sections in the sample studied. However, the opinion that vaginal delivery is better than cesarean section was expressed independently of the recognition that pain could be its main disadvantage.
Subject(s)
Cesarean Section/psychology , Labor, Obstetric/psychology , Pain/psychology , Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data , Brazil , Cesarean Section/adverse effects , Cesarean Section/trends , Female , Humans , Patient Satisfaction/ethnology , Pregnancy , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
A multi-centered qualitative study was conducted in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico to assess the acceptability of emergency contraception both among potential users and possible providers, authorities, and opinion-makers, and to identify (according to participants' perceptions) factors facilitating or hindering the method's use and the most appropriate strategies to disseminate information and provide the method. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, group interviews, and discussion groups, which were tape-recorded and transcribed. A thematic analysis of this material was conducted. Acceptability of emergency contraception was high among participants, who also felt that there were no barriers towards its acceptance by the population. Participants felt that the method's acceptability would be greater if it were included in reproductive health programs, emphasizing its prescription for emergency situations. Participants highlighted that strategic components in Brazil would be training of providers and inclusion of the method in family planning services.
Subject(s)
Contraceptives, Postcoital , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Brazil , Communication Barriers , Female , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Social FacilitationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The opinions of Brazilian women regarding vaginal delivery and cesarean sections was studied. METHODS: Six hundred and fifty-six women who had given birth in seven hospitals in São Paulo and Pernambuco, using the Public Health Service, were interviewed. The opinions of women who had delivered only by cesarean section was compared with those of women who had had at least one vaginal delivery. RESULTS: Significantly more women who had experienced at least one vaginal delivery considered this to be the best way of giving birth (90.4% vs. 75.9% among C-section-only women). Similar proportions in both groups (45.5% and 42.8%) stated that vaginal labor is better because it causes less pain and suffering for the woman. Significantly more women who had experienced a vaginal labor (47.1% vs. 30.3%) reported that it had no disadvantage. More women who had only had cesarean sections referred not having contractions/pain as an advantage of this method (56.7% vs. 41.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Apparently, pain and women's perception of pain were the characteristics which differentiated women with history of vaginal delivery from those with cesarean sections in the sample studied. However, the opinion that vaginal delivery is better than cesarean section was expressed independently of the recognition that pain could be its main disadvantage.