[Core competencies in public health: a regional framework for the Americas]. / Competencias esenciales en salud pública: un marco regional para las Américas.

The response is described to the 2010 call from the Pan American Health Organization to develop a Regional Framework on Core Competencies in Public Health, with a view to supporting the efforts of the countries in the Americas to build public health systems capacity as a strategy for optimal performance of the Essential Public Health Functions. The methodological process for the response was divided into four phases. In the first, a team of experts was convened who defined the methodology to be used during a workshop at the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico in 2010. The second phase involved formation of the working groups, using two criteria: experience and multidisciplinary membership, which resulted in a regional team with 225 members from 12 countries. This team prepared an initial proposal with 88 competencies. In the third phase, the competencies were cross-validated and their number reduced to 64. During the fourth phase, which included two workshops, in March 2011 (Medellín, Colombia) and June 2011 (Lima, Peru), discussions centered on analyzing the association between the results and the methodology.

[Adherence to codes of conduct for biomedical information on the internet in useful websites for pharmacotherapy follow-up]. / Adecuación a los códigos de conducta para información biomédica en internet de sitios web útiles para el seguimiento farmacoterapéutico.

OBJECTIVES: To assess adherence to four codes of conduct in websites providing information useful for pharmacotherapy follow-up. METHODS: We performed a descriptive study of adherence to quality criteria in 19 websites. These sites had been identified in a previous study as being those most frequently used by pharmacists. A descriptive analysis was performed and the kappa coefficient was calculated to evaluate interrater concordance (Fleiss' criteria for evaluation of the kappa index). RESULTS: The most highly rated source of clinical practice guidelines and that which adhered most closely to the 4 codes of conduct was Fisterra. The websites most highly rated in reviews and secondary sources were the Cochrane Library and PubMed. The most highly rated journals were JAMA and the BMJ, followed by Atención Primaria and Medicina Clínica. Among drug information guides, the highest scores were obtained by BOT and Martindale's. The highest rated drug bulletins were the Boletín Terapéutico Andaluz and Butlletí Groc. The most highly rated agency was the World Health Organization. The journals with the lowest scores were Pharmaceutical Care and Seguimiento Farmacoterapéutico followed by the Spanish Internacional Vademecum MediMedia-Medicom. According to Fleiss's criteria, interrater concordance was acceptable for the 4 codes. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the web sites evaluated varied widely, although most received scores of more than 60 points (out of 100) in the 4 codes of conduct used for evaluation.

[Assessment of websites with information on medicines]. / Evaluación de sitios web con información sobre medicamentos.

AIMS: To identify websites with information on medicines and assess, using experts, their adherence to codes of conduct and recommendations by the WHO. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study based on an ad hoc designed questionnaire (performed independently by 2 reviewers). The websites were identified by the Delphi technique (35 experts). SETTING: Websites with information on medicines. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 35 websites selected by the Delphi technique. An acceptable level of stability was achieved in the third round (interquartile variability; <0.05). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Responsibility, transparency and honesty, authorship of the information, content review policy, privacy and data protection policies, updated information and accessibility. A descriptive analysis of compliance was carried out and the kappa coefficient was estimated to evaluate the agreement between assessors (Fleiss's Criteria). RESULTS: The National Prescribing Service Limited (NPS), PubMed, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of American Medical Association, The Lancet, Fisterra and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence stood out with an overall high fulfilment of the questionnaire. The updated information dimension was the lowest evaluation for the different websites. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the web sites evaluated varied widely. Although there are several websites, which are detailed in the article, with high overall scores.