RESUMO
Introducción: La comunicación en salud integra la capacidad de informar, incluir y motivar a la población sobre temas relacionados con la salud, cuyas funciones incluyen la supervivencia del paciente, su salud general y específica, y su bienestar económico y social. Sin embargo, los distintos sistemas de salud pueden tener fortalezas y limitaciones que requieren evaluación sistemática, y en función de ello proponer acciones de mejoras. Objetivo: valorar las perspectivas de comunicación en salud en el entorno guayaquileño, según categorías de información, instrucción e integración. Métodos: investigación descriptiva/explicativa de orden correlacional, estudiando los criterios de profesionales de la salud (85 encuestados) sobre indicadores de información, instrucción e integración. Resultados: La variable "Información" no presentó diferencias significativas (p=0.762) al comparar los antecedentes con los datos de la presente investigación, mientras que las variables Instrucción (p=0.000) e Integración (p=0.006) sí presentaron diferencias notables en detrimento de la presente investigación. Conclusiones: Se evidencia problemas notables de comunicación en el personal de salud guayaquileño, enfatizando en las variables de Instrucción e Integración relacionadas con la comunicación. las perspectivas de acciones a mediano y largo plazo deben encaminarse en términos prioritarios a mejorar el proceso de comunicación interna y externa entre el personal/profesional de la salud, los directivos en los centros hospitalarios, y el proceso asociado de superación profesional, incluyendo los procesos de cooperación entre los distintos actores del sector salud.
Introduction: Health communication integrates the ability to inform, include and motivate the population on health-related topics, whose functions include the patient's survival, their general and specific health, and their economic and social well-being. However, different health systems may have strengths and limitations that require systematic evaluation, and based on this, improvement actions must be proposed. Objective: to assess the health communication perspectives in the Guayaquil environment, according to categories of information, instruction and integration. Methods: descriptive/explanatory correlational research, studying the health professional's criteria (85 respondents) on information, instruction and integration indicators. Results: The variable "Information" did not present significant differences (p=0.762) when comparing the background with the present research data, while the variables Instruction (p=0.000) and Integration (p=0.006) did present notable differences in detriment of the present research. Conclusions: Notable communication problems are evident in Guayaquil health personnel, emphasizing the Instruction and Integration variables related to communication. The perspectives of medium and long-term actions must be directed in priority terms to improve the internal and external communication process between the staff/health professionals, the managers in the hospital centers, and the associated process of professional improvement, including the processes cooperation between the different actors in the health sector.
RESUMO
Developing gross motor function implies strengthening the basic body position and the balance associated with posture and mobility, for which different teaching models and psycho-pedagogical interventions are applied. OBJECTIVE: to develop gross motor function in male preschoolers through physical recreational activities based on conductivist (Group 1) and constructivist (Group 2) teaching and determine the best teaching paradigm. Two basic skills were studied in two homogeneous independent samples (walking: w = 0.641; running: w = 0.556), selecting 25 children for each group (3-4 years) through the use of intentional sampling. The gross skills evaluation was based on norms established by the Education Ministry, including a mood assessment. RESULTS: each group improved their basic skills in the post-test (Group 1: W = 0.001; W = 0.001. Group 2: W = 0.046; W = 0.038), but the conductivist paradigm was superior (w = 0.033; w = 0.027). Group 1 presented better indicators in the motor evaluations "Acquired" and "In Process" than Group 2, and lower percentages in the "Initiated" evaluation than Group 2 in the abilities "walking" as well as "running", which were significantly different in the "Initiated" evaluation (p = 0.0469) for the walking ability, and significantly different in the "Initiated" and "Acquired" evaluations (p = 0.0469; p = 0.0341, respectively) for the running skill. CONCLUSIONS: The conductivist teaching model was superior in terms of gross motor function optimization.