Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 760
Filtrar
1.
Aten. prim. (Barc., Ed. impr.) ; 53(1): 89-101, ene. 2021. tab
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-191342

RESUMO

En el trabajo se hace una aproximación a las características psicológicas y psicosociales que está adquiriendo la pandemia de la COVID-19 en los países de nuestro medio socio-cultural. Se discute la escasez de investigaciones al respecto y la necesaria aceptación de la incertidumbre para enfrentar la situación, tanto a nivel social, como sanitario y personal. En consecuencia, se proponen una serie de reflexiones y recomendaciones para los cuidados psicológicos de la población, los trabajadores sanitarios y la organización social basándose en: 1) La existencia de investigaciones psicológicas y psicosociales sobre temas conectados con estos y 2) En las nuevas perspectivas neurocientíficas sobre las emociones y su elaboración en situaciones de crisis


An approach is made to the psychological and psychosocial characteristics that the COVID-19 pandemic is acquiring in the countries of our socio-cultural environment. The scarcity of research in this regard and the necessary acceptance of uncertainty to face the situation, both socially, as well as health and psychological, are discussed. Consequently, a series of reflections and recommendations are proposed for the psychological care of the population, health workers and social organization based on: 1) The existence of psychological and psychosocial research into connected fields and 2) In the new neuroscientific perspectives on emotions and their elaboration in crisis situations


Assuntos
Humanos , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/psicologia , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/psicologia , Pandemias , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Impacto Psicossocial , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial , Espanha/epidemiologia , Grupos de Risco , Saúde Mental
2.
Trials ; 22(1): 8, 2021 Jan 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33407804

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine which of two interventions: 1) an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme (REGAIN); or 2) a single online session of advice (best-practice usual care); is the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge. TRIAL DESIGN: Multi-centre, 2-arm (1:1 ratio) parallel group, randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and health economic evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge Inclusion criteria: 1) Adults ≥18 years; 2) ≥ 3 months after any hospital discharge related to COVID-19 infection, regardless of need for critical care or ventilatory support; 3) substantial (as defined by the participant) COVID-19 related physical and/or mental health problems; 4) access to, and able/supported to use email and internet audio/video; 4) able to provide informed consent; 5) able to understand spoken and written English, Bengali, Gujarati, Urdu, Punjabi or Mandarin, themselves or supported by family/friends. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) exercise contraindicated; 2) severe mental health problems preventing engagement; 3) previous randomisation in the present study; 4) already engaged in, or planning to engage in an alternative NHS rehabilitation programme in the next 12 weeks; 5) a member of the same household previously randomised in the present study. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention 1: The Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) programme: an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme. Intervention 2: A thirty-minute, on-line, one-to-one consultation with a REGAIN practitioner (best-practice usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - PROMIS® 29+2 Profile v2.1 (PROPr) - measured at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include dyspnoea, cognitive function, health utility, physical activity participation, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity, depressive and anxiety symptoms, work status, health and social care resource use, death - measured at three, six and 12 months post-randomisation. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomised to best practice usual care or the REGAIN programme on a 1:1.03 basis using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, performed by minimisation and stratified by age, level of hospital care, and case level mental health symptomatology. Once consent and baseline questionnaires have been completed by the participant online at home, randomisation will be performed automatically by a bespoke web-based system. BLINDING (MASKING): To ensure allocation concealment from both participant and REGAIN practitioner at baseline, randomisation will be performed only after the baseline questionnaires have been completed online at home by the participant. After randomisation has been performed, participants and REGAIN practitioners cannot be blind to group allocation. Follow-up outcome assessments will be completed by participants online at home. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 535 participants will be randomised: 263 to the best-practice usual care arm, and 272 participants to the REGAIN programme arm. TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol: Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) Recruitment will begin in December 2020 and is anticipated to complete by September 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN:11466448 , 23rd November 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interests of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines.


Assuntos
/reabilitação , Terapia por Exercício/métodos , Intervenção Baseada em Internet/economia , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial , Encaminhamento e Consulta/economia , Adulto , /psicologia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Terapia por Exercício/economia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Resultado do Tratamento , Reino Unido
3.
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci ; 30: e5, 2021 Jan 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33413736

RESUMO

AIMS: When the Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) adopted the composite term mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) and published its guidelines for MHPSS in emergency settings in 2007, it aimed to build consensus and strengthen coordination among relevant humanitarian actors. The term MHPSS offered an inclusive tent by welcoming the different terminologies, explanatory models and intervention methods of diverse actors across several humanitarian sectors (e.g., health, protection, education, nutrition). Since its introduction, the term has become well-established within the global humanitarian system. However, it has also been critiqued for papering over substantive differences in the intervention priorities and conceptual frameworks that inform the wide range of interventions described as MHPSS. Our aims are to clarify those conceptual frameworks, to argue for their essential complementarity and to illustrate the perils of failing to adequately consider the causal models and theories of change that underlie our interventions. METHODS: We describe the historical backdrop against which the term MHPSS and the IASC guidelines were developed, as well as their impact on improving relations and coordination among different aid sectors. We consider the conceptual fuzziness in the field of MHPSS and the lack of clear articulation of the different conceptual frameworks that guide interventions. We describe the explanatory models and intervention approaches of two primary frameworks within MHPSS, which we label clinical and social-environmental. Using the examples of intimate partner violence and compromised parenting in humanitarian settings, we illustrate the complementarity of these two frameworks, as well as the challenges that can arise when either framework is inappropriately applied. RESULTS: Clinical interventions prioritise the role of intrapersonal variables, biological and/or psychological, as mediators of change in the treatment of distress. Social-environmental interventions emphasise the role of social determinants of distress and target factors in the social and material environments in order to lower distress and increase resilience in the face of adversity. Both approaches play a critical role in humanitarian settings; however, the rationale for adopting one or the other approach is commonly insufficiently articulated and should be based on a thorough assessment of causal processes at multiple levels of the social ecology. CONCLUSIONS: Greater attention to the 'why' of our intervention choices and more explicit articulation of the causal models and theories of change that underlie those decisions (i.e., the 'how'), may strengthen intervention effects and minimise the risk of applying the inappropriate framework and actions to a particular problem.


Assuntos
Altruísmo , Conflitos Armados , Saúde Mental , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial , Meio Social , Humanos , Refugiados
6.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 11: CD013779, 2020 11 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33150970

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Evidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the mental well-being of health and social care professionals. Symptoms of mental health problems commonly include depression, anxiety, stress, and additional cognitive and social problems; these can impact on function in the workplace. The mental health and resilience (ability to cope with the negative effects of stress) of frontline health and social care professionals ('frontline workers' in this review) could be supported during disease epidemics by workplace interventions, interventions to support basic daily needs, psychological support interventions, pharmacological interventions, or a combination of any or all of these. OBJECTIVES: Objective 1: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Objective 2: to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. SEARCH METHODS: On 28 May 2020 we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus databases and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing. We also searched ongoing trials registers and Google Scholar. We ran all searches from the year 2002 onwards, with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies in which participants were health and social care professionals working at the front line during infectious disease outbreaks, categorised as epidemics or pandemics by WHO, from 2002 onwards. For objective 1 we included quantitative evidence from randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies, which investigated the effect of any intervention to support mental health or resilience, compared to no intervention, standard care, placebo or attention control intervention, or other active interventions. For objective 2 we included qualitative evidence from studies that described barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions. Outcomes critical to this review were general mental health and resilience. Additional outcomes included psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress; burnout; other mental health disorders; workplace staffing; and adverse events arising from interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently applied selection criteria to abstracts and full papers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. One review author systematically extracted data, cross-checked by a second review author. For objective 1, we assessed risk of bias of studies of effectiveness using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For objective 2, we assessed methodological limitations using either the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) qualitative study tool, for qualitative studies, or WEIRD (Ways of Evaluating Important and Relevant Data) tool, for descriptive studies. We planned meta-analyses of pairwise comparisons for outcomes if direct evidence were available. Two review authors extracted evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to implementation, organised these around the domains of the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in each finding. We planned to produce an overarching synthesis, bringing quantitative and qualitative findings together. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies that reported implementation of an intervention aimed at supporting the resilience or mental health of frontline workers during disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): 2; Ebola: 9; Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): 1; COVID-19: 4). Interventions studied included workplace interventions, such as training, structure and communication (6 studies); psychological support interventions, such as counselling and psychology services (8 studies); and multifaceted interventions (2 studies). Objective 1: a mixed-methods study that incorporated a cluster-randomised trial, investigating the effect of a work-based intervention, provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of training frontline healthcare workers to deliver psychological first aid on a measure of burnout. Objective 2: we included all 16 studies in our qualitative evidence synthesis; we classified seven as qualitative and nine as descriptive studies. We identified 17 key findings from multiple barriers and facilitators reported in studies. We did not have high confidence in any of the findings; we had moderate confidence in six findings and low to very low confidence in 11 findings. We are moderately confident that the following two factors were barriers to intervention implementation: frontline workers, or the organisations in which they worked, not being fully aware of what they needed to support their mental well-being; and a lack of equipment, staff time or skills needed for an intervention. We are moderately confident that the following three factors were facilitators of intervention implementation: interventions that could be adapted for local needs; having effective communication, both formally and socially; and having positive, safe and supportive learning environments for frontline workers. We are moderately confident that the knowledge or beliefs, or both, that people have about an intervention can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementation of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of both quantitative and qualitative evidence from studies carried out during or after disease epidemics and pandemics that can inform the selection of interventions that are beneficial to the resilience and mental health of frontline workers. Alternative sources of evidence (e.g. from other healthcare crises, and general evidence about interventions that support mental well-being) could therefore be used to inform decision making. When selecting interventions aimed at supporting frontline workers' mental health, organisational, social, personal, and psychological factors may all be important. Research to determine the effectiveness of interventions is a high priority. The COVID-19 pandemic provides unique opportunities for robust evaluation of interventions. Future studies must be developed with appropriately rigorous planning, including development, peer review and transparent reporting of research protocols, following guidance and standards for best practice, and with appropriate length of follow-up. Factors that may act as barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions should be considered during the planning of future research and when selecting interventions to deliver within local settings.


Assuntos
Surtos de Doenças , Pessoal de Saúde/psicologia , Saúde Mental , Saúde do Trabalhador , Resiliência Psicológica , Assistentes Sociais/psicologia , Betacoronavirus , Viés , Esgotamento Profissional/psicologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Epidemias , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/epidemiologia , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/terapia , Humanos , Determinação de Necessidades de Cuidados de Saúde , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave/epidemiologia , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave/terapia , Local de Trabalho
7.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33158180

RESUMO

This study evaluates the psychological impact (PI) of the COVID-19 pandemic in frontline workers in Spain. Participants were 546 workers (296 healthcare workers, 105 media professionals, 89 grocery workers, and 83 protective service workers). They all completed online questionnaires assessing PI, sadness, concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and demographic and work-related variables. All groups but protective services workers showed higher PI levels than the general population. Healthcare and grocery workers were the most affected, with 73.6% and 65.2% of the participants, respectively, showing a severe PI. Women showed a higher PI level. Healthcare workers in the regions with higher COVID-19 incidences reported greater PI levels. The main concerns were being infected by COVID-19 or infecting others. Levels of concern correlated with higher PI levels. The protection equipment was generally reported as insufficient, which correlated with higher PI levels. Professionals reporting to overwork during the crisis (60% mass-media, 38% of healthcare and grocery and 21.7% of protective service) showed higher PI levels. In the healthcare group, taking care of patients with COVID-19 (77%) or of dying patients with COVID-19 (43.9%) was associated with higher PI levels. The perceived social recognition of their work was inversely related to PI. Most of the sample had not received psychological support. We suggest some organizational measures for frontline institutions, such as the periodical monitoring or inclusion of psychologists specialized in crisis-management to prevent negative symptoms and provide timely support.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/psicologia , Emprego/psicologia , Pessoal de Saúde/psicologia , Ocupações , Pneumonia Viral/psicologia , Estresse Psicológico/epidemiologia , Adulto , Betacoronavirus , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial , Espanha/epidemiologia
8.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 20(1): 703, 2020 Nov 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33208115

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Trauma, natural and man-made catastrophic events can be predictors of postpartum psychological distress. In a public health response due to coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, the Italian government imposed a lockdown from March 9 to May 3. This extraordinary situation may have been challenging for maternal psychological health. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of depressive and post-traumatic stress symptoms in women giving birth during the Covid-19 pandemic and its associations with quarantine measures, obstetrical factors, and relational attachment style. METHODS: Women who gave birth in a high-volume obstetric/gynaecological medical centre located in an epidemic area during the Covid-19 pandemic (March 8 to June 15) were asked to complete an online survey about their childbirth experience and the perceived effect of the pandemic. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) were administered to assess levels of postpartum depressive and post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and relational style of attachment, respectively. Multivariate analysis was applied to identify associations between quarantine measures, childbirth experience, attachment style, and EPDS and IES-R scores. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 163 women (response rate 60.8%). The prevalence of depressive symptoms was 44.2% (EPDS cut-off score ≥ 11) and the PTSS rate was 42.9% (IES-R cut-off score ≥ 24). Dismissive and fearful avoidant attachment styles were significantly associated with the risk of depression and PTSS, respectively. Perceived pain during birth was a risk factor for postpartum depression. Perceived support provided by healthcare staff was a protective factor against depression and PTSS. Another protective factor against PTSS was quiet on the ward due to the absence of hospital visitors. CONCLUSION: This study reports a high prevalence of postpartum depressive and PTSS in women who gave birth during the Covid-19 pandemic. Postnatal psychological distress seemed to be associated more with the prenatal experience and other individual factors than with the pandemic hospital restrictions. Early detection during pregnancy of an insecure attachment style is fundamental to provide targeted preventive and therapeutic psychological interventions.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/psicologia , Depressão Pós-Parto , Pneumonia Viral/psicologia , Período Pós-Parto/psicologia , Gestantes/psicologia , Angústia Psicológica , Quarentena/psicologia , Adulto , Betacoronavirus , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Estudos Transversais , Depressão Pós-Parto/epidemiologia , Depressão Pós-Parto/etiologia , Depressão Pós-Parto/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Humanos , Itália/epidemiologia , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Parto/psicologia , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Gravidez , Prevalência , Psicologia , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial , Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/epidemiologia , Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/etiologia , Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/prevenção & controle
9.
Brasília, D.F.; OPAS; 2020-11-16. (OPAS/BRA/NMH/MH/COVID-19/20-0026).
Não convencional em Português | PAHO-IRIS | ID: phr2-53017

RESUMO

A pandemia de COVID-19 é uma ameaça de grande proporção tanto para a saúde física como para a saúde mental e o bem-estar de sociedades inteiras que se viram gravemente afetadas por essa crise, sendo esta uma prioridade que deve ser abordada com urgência. A adversidade associada às consequências socioeconômicas, ao medo do vírus e sua propagação, bem como às preocupações relacionadas, possuem um impacto importante na saúde mental da população. Este documento descreve as orientações de Saúde Mental e Apoio Psicossocial (SMAPS) fundamentais recomendadas para serem desenvolvidas de forma intersetorial nos países e nas comunidades. Para isso, propõe-se utilizar como marco de referência a pirâmide de intervenções para os serviços de SMAPS do Comitê Permanente Interagências (IASC). A pirâmide ilustra diferentes níveis de apoio que variam desde a integração de considerações sociais, de segurança e relativas às necessidades básicas, até a prestação de serviços especializados para o manejo de condições mais graves, assim como a provável dimensão de demanda para cada um dos níveis estabelecidos.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Coronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus , Saúde Mental , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial , Sistemas de Saúde , Fatores de Risco , Fatores Socioeconômicos , Impacto Psicossocial
10.
Brasília, D.F.; OPAS; 2020-11-03. (OPAS/NMH/MH/COVID-19/20-0032).
em Português | PAHO-IRIS | ID: phr2-52972

RESUMO

A pandemia mundial de COVID-19 forçou a exploração de opções para proporcionar intervenções remotas de saúde mental e apoio psicossocial (SMAPS) (à distância, digitais ou online) devido à necessidade da saúde pública de manter o distanciamento físico. Ainda que os serviços de saúde mental precisem de profissionais especializados ou outros profissionais da saúde capacitados em saúde mental, os atores comunitários podem oferecer intervenções psicossociais, como primeiros cuidados psicológicos (PCP) e o apoio mútuo.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Saúde Mental , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias , Coronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial
13.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(44): e22905, 2020 Oct 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33126345

RESUMO

Coupled with the lowest level of social connectedness, South Korea has the highest suicide rate among the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. A possible link between community and suicide is social capital imprinted in social connectedness. This study explores whether social capital is protective against suicide ideation in relation to the poverty level of communities, and whether the associations are specific to certain elements of social capital.A total of 908 participants were included to assess cross-sectional association of social capital at individual level with suicide ideation by comparing between poor (government-leased apartments) and non-poor communities (nongovernment-leased apartments). Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine various social capital dimensions in relation to suicide ideation.Suicide ideation was far higher among those living in the poor communities (poor communities 12%; non poor communities 6.3%) and the level of social capital was lower in the poor communities. Nevertheless, the protective effect of social capital, in particular, the cognitive dimension against suicide ideation was demonstrated only in the poor communities (eg, odds ratio = 0.27, 95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.58 for trust in the poor communities). Low income was significantly associated with suicide ideation only in the poor communities, but depression and resilience were associated with suicide ideation both in the poor and non-poor communities.To increase the reliability of the results, established measures based on relevant literature were utilized, but measures on bridging social capital and social network might have relatively low reliability.As to protection against suicide ideation, the extent of reliance on social capital was higher in poor communities than in non-poor communities, in particular, the cognitive dimension was likely to activate in this regard.


Assuntos
Relações Interpessoais , Pobreza/psicologia , Capital Social , Condições Sociais , Ideação Suicida , Suicídio , Adulto , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Fatores de Proteção , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial , Saúde Pública , República da Coreia/epidemiologia , Características de Residência , Resiliência Psicológica , Condições Sociais/economia , Condições Sociais/estatística & dados numéricos , Suicídio/economia , Suicídio/prevenção & controle , Suicídio/psicologia , Suicídio/estatística & dados numéricos
14.
PLoS One ; 15(10): e0239811, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33031426

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Cancer Survivorship is a growing public health challenge. Effective responses from health care and social services depend on appropriate identification of survivors and their families´ specific needs. There are few studies on survivorship in low and middle-income countries, therefore, more evidence-based studies are necessary to develop a comprehensive approach to cancer survivorship. OBJECTIVES: Identify the needs of cancer survivors and their relatives, specifically those of individuals with breast, cervical or prostate cancer, and with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL). METHODS: A qualitative, exploratory study conducted in two referral institutions in Brazil, located in Rio de Janeiro (Southeast region) and Fortaleza (Northeast region). The study included 47 patients of public and private health services and 12 family members. We used script-based semi-structured interviews. The discursive material obtained was categorized and analyzed using the Thematic Analysis approach. RESULTS: The analysis identified three central themes: 1) consequences of cancer treatment; 2) Changes in daily life associated with cancer survivorship; and 3) Unmet structural needs in cancer survivorship. CONCLUSION: Social and cancer control policies in Brazil should provide resources, specific care standards and clinical, psychological and social support. Cancer survivors should also receive rehabilitation and work reintegration guidelines. This matter requires broader access to qualified cancer information, development of an integrated patient-centered care and care model, and more research resources for the country's post-treatment cancer period.


Assuntos
Sobreviventes de Câncer , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde , Assistência Centrada no Paciente , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial , Padrão de Cuidado , Sobrevivência , Adulto , Idoso , Brasil , Família , Feminino , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Qualidade de Vida/psicologia , Grupos de Autoajuda , Inquéritos e Questionários , Adulto Jovem
16.
Can Fam Physician ; 66(10): 745-747, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33077454
19.
Cad Saude Publica ; 36(9): e00132120, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês, Português | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32965375

RESUMO

Brazil is the country of the world with the second most COVID-19 cases and deaths, and the pandemic's impacts pose multiple challenges for mental health. This paper reports on experience with the emergency organization of the volunteer and collaborative Working Group (GT, in Portuguese) on mental health and psychosocial care aimed at producing rapid responses for health services in the context of COVID-19. The study involved the identification and systematization of current evidence in the scientific literature on mental health and psychosocial care in public health emergencies and pandemics, with the establishment of a network involving 117 researchers and 25 institutions, and the organization of themes for the elaboration of materials, referenced on the response phases in public health emergencies and pandemics. In less than 60 days, 18 technical documents were produced, ranging from services organization and management for different vulnerable groups. The materials became references in health institutions and services. A national course on mental health and psychosocial care in COVID-19 was also organized, with more than 60,000 people registered. The experience provides food for thought and a contribution for future experiences involving knowledge translation in the current pandemic and in future public health emergencies and pandemics, with the following: (1) combination of volunteer and collaborative work involving professionals with experience in the organization of services and care in past events; (2) reliance on institutional support and resources; (3) speed and credibility of work involving the establishment of networks of professionals and institutions; and (4) responses to the urgent needs with the capacity to shape paths for care in mental health and psychosocial care.


Assuntos
Comportamento Cooperativo , Infecções por Coronavirus/psicologia , Pessoal de Saúde/psicologia , Saúde Mental , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/psicologia , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial , Voluntários/estatística & dados numéricos , Betacoronavirus , Brasil/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Humanos , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Desenvolvimento de Programas
20.
Australas Psychiatry ; 28(6): 624-626, 2020 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32961102

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of quarantine for returning travellers and the effect this has on people's mental health has become a topical issue. This article briefly describes the historical context of quarantine, research around its impact on people's well-being, and the experiences of a clinical psychologist providing support to people in quarantine. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health professionals are in a unique position to assist people in quarantine, both in terms of counselling and ongoing research.


Assuntos
Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Carência Psicossocial , Saúde Pública , Quarentena , Isolamento Social/psicologia , Pesquisa Comportamental , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Coronavirus/psicologia , Humanos , Saúde Mental , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/psicologia , Papel Profissional , Psicologia/métodos , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial , Saúde Pública/métodos , Saúde Pública/tendências , Quarentena/psicologia , Quarentena/tendências
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA