巴西圣保罗州圣保罗市公共和私营医疗保健系统在抗击COVID-19中面临的挑战

Beatriz Vilares Correia, Daniela Bertagni Abraão, Isabela Toledo Pestana Silva, Giovanna Ayres Rossini, Giovanna Gabrieli Aparecida S. Fazzolari, Yasmin Mendes R. Dos Santos, Leonardo Sokolnik de Oliveira
{"title":"巴西圣保罗州<s:1>圣保罗市公共和私营医疗保健系统在抗击COVID-19中面临的挑战","authors":"Beatriz Vilares Correia, Daniela Bertagni Abraão, Isabela Toledo Pestana Silva, Giovanna Ayres Rossini, Giovanna Gabrieli Aparecida S. Fazzolari, Yasmin Mendes R. Dos Santos, Leonardo Sokolnik de Oliveira","doi":"10.56242/globalhealth;2021;1;3;12-15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE: To compare the difficulties faced by the public and private systems’ healthcare systems professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Through an online form, which was sent to healthcare professionals, it was asked what the main difficulties they had to face during the pandemic were, such as the lack of PPEs, beds, professionals, the large number of patients, as well as the proper training in both the public and private sectors. RESULTS: There 389 forms received. Among the people who answered the form, 256 worked only at the public sector, while only 82 worked at the private sector, and 52 of them worked at both. It was possible to realize the disproportionality of the hardships faced by them in both sectors. Regarding the public workers, 42% of those who answered the form faced lack of PPEs, while this number is only 17.1% when it comes to the private sector. As for the number of infected professionals the public scope was also in disadvantage, 33.6% of them were infected, a larger number compared to the 20.7% that showed up in the private scope. The difference between the lack of beds, however, was not statistically relevant according to the chi-square test. CONCLUSION: We concluded that in many ways, as expected, the members of the public system are in disadvantage when compared to the ones in the private one. Factors such as the lack of PPEs and number of infected professionals were extremely out of proportion between both sectors.","PeriodicalId":285800,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Global Health","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenges for the public and private healthcare systems in the fight against COVID-19 in São Paulo, SP, Brazil\",\"authors\":\"Beatriz Vilares Correia, Daniela Bertagni Abraão, Isabela Toledo Pestana Silva, Giovanna Ayres Rossini, Giovanna Gabrieli Aparecida S. Fazzolari, Yasmin Mendes R. Dos Santos, Leonardo Sokolnik de Oliveira\",\"doi\":\"10.56242/globalhealth;2021;1;3;12-15\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE: To compare the difficulties faced by the public and private systems’ healthcare systems professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Through an online form, which was sent to healthcare professionals, it was asked what the main difficulties they had to face during the pandemic were, such as the lack of PPEs, beds, professionals, the large number of patients, as well as the proper training in both the public and private sectors. RESULTS: There 389 forms received. Among the people who answered the form, 256 worked only at the public sector, while only 82 worked at the private sector, and 52 of them worked at both. It was possible to realize the disproportionality of the hardships faced by them in both sectors. Regarding the public workers, 42% of those who answered the form faced lack of PPEs, while this number is only 17.1% when it comes to the private sector. As for the number of infected professionals the public scope was also in disadvantage, 33.6% of them were infected, a larger number compared to the 20.7% that showed up in the private scope. The difference between the lack of beds, however, was not statistically relevant according to the chi-square test. CONCLUSION: We concluded that in many ways, as expected, the members of the public system are in disadvantage when compared to the ones in the private one. Factors such as the lack of PPEs and number of infected professionals were extremely out of proportion between both sectors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":285800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian Journal of Global Health\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian Journal of Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56242/globalhealth;2021;1;3;12-15\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56242/globalhealth;2021;1;3;12-15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较2019冠状病毒病疫情期间公立和私立医疗卫生系统专业人员面临的困难。方法:通过向卫生保健专业人员发送在线表格,询问他们在大流行期间必须面对的主要困难是什么,例如缺乏ppe、床位、专业人员、大量患者以及公共和私营部门的适当培训。结果:共收到表格389份。在回答问卷的人中,只在公共部门工作的有256人,在民间部门工作的有82人,同时在公共部门和民间部门工作的有52人。可以认识到他们在这两个部门所面临的困难是不成比例的。在公务员中,有42%的人回答说“缺乏公共服务”,而在私营部门中,这一比例仅为17.1%。至于受感染的专业人员人数,公共领域也处于不利地位,其中33.6%的人受到感染,高于私人领域的20.7%。然而,根据卡方检验,缺乏床位之间的差异没有统计学相关性。结论:我们得出结论,在许多方面,正如预期的那样,公共系统的成员与私营系统的成员相比处于劣势。缺乏ppe和受感染专业人员的数量等因素在这两个部门之间极不相称。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Challenges for the public and private healthcare systems in the fight against COVID-19 in São Paulo, SP, Brazil
OBJECTIVE: To compare the difficulties faced by the public and private systems’ healthcare systems professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Through an online form, which was sent to healthcare professionals, it was asked what the main difficulties they had to face during the pandemic were, such as the lack of PPEs, beds, professionals, the large number of patients, as well as the proper training in both the public and private sectors. RESULTS: There 389 forms received. Among the people who answered the form, 256 worked only at the public sector, while only 82 worked at the private sector, and 52 of them worked at both. It was possible to realize the disproportionality of the hardships faced by them in both sectors. Regarding the public workers, 42% of those who answered the form faced lack of PPEs, while this number is only 17.1% when it comes to the private sector. As for the number of infected professionals the public scope was also in disadvantage, 33.6% of them were infected, a larger number compared to the 20.7% that showed up in the private scope. The difference between the lack of beds, however, was not statistically relevant according to the chi-square test. CONCLUSION: We concluded that in many ways, as expected, the members of the public system are in disadvantage when compared to the ones in the private one. Factors such as the lack of PPEs and number of infected professionals were extremely out of proportion between both sectors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Uso de drogas entre estudantes universitários. Massive and early testing of SARS-COV2 in rural unions affiliated to FAESP-SENAR/SP. Diagnóstico molecular de agentes parasitários e coronavírus em gatos no Nordeste do Brasil. A one health approach to leishmaniasis in a slum: another piece of a global scenario. Conhecimento dos profissionais da equipe de Enfermagem sobre prevenção de infecção de corrente sanguínea relacionada a cateteres venosos em unidade de terapia intensiva pediátrica e neonatal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1