Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Medwave ; 20(2): e7848, 31-03-2020.
Article in English, Spanish | LILACS | ID: biblio-1096513

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCCIÓN: Se ha estudiado poco sobre el impacto de los programas de servicio social en salud en el desarrollo profesional de médicos de los Estados Andinos (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú y Venezuela), programas cuya finalidad es incrementar los recursos humanos en salud en zonas rurales y remotas. OBJETIVO: Describir la normativa de los programas de servicio social para profesionales médicos de los Estados Andinos. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una revisión bibliográfica de documentos normativos concernientes al servicio social para profesionales médicos en sitios web de gobiernos de los Estados Andinos, con la finalidad de obtener información la condición de servicio, financiamiento del programa/remuneraciones y modos de adjudicación. Adicionalmente, se empleó el motor de búsqueda PubMed para complementar la información sobre servicios sociales obligatorios en estos países. RESULTADOS: El servicio social para profesionales médicos está establecido bajo un marco normativo en todos los Estados Andinos, a excepción de Argentina, donde no existe este programa. Los participantes perciben una remuneración, salvo en Bolivia, donde el servicio es realizado por estudiantes. Los sistemas de adjudicación para estos programas son heterogéneos, siendo que en algunos Estados Andinos existe asignación de plazas según criterios meritocráticos. La participación en programas sociales en salud condiciona el ejercicio profesional (Ecuador, Colombia y Venezuela) y el poder realizar una especialización (Chile y Perú). CONCLUSIONES: Se requiere estudiar del impacto de estos programas en el desarrollo profesional del participante, con el objetivo de implementar estrategias de mejora adecuadas a sus contextos particulares.


INTRODUCTION: There are few studies on the impact of social service programs on health in the professional development of doctors in the Andean States (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela). The purpose of these programs is to increase the availability of human resources in health in rural and remote areas. OBJECTIVE: To describe the regulations of social service programs for medical professionals in the Andean countries. METHODS: We carried out a bibliographic review of normative documents concerning the social service for medical professionals using websites of governments of the Andean States as data sources. We sought to obtain information regarding service conditions, funding of these programs­including remunerations, and means of program allocation. Additionally, we used PubMed/MEDLINE to find complementary information on mandatory social services in these countries. RESULTS: Social service for medical professionals is established under a regulatory framework in all the Andean countries, except for Argentina, where this program does not exist. Participants receive remuneration (except in Bolivia, where students perform the service). The allocation systems used for these programs are heterogeneous, and in some Andean countries, the allocation is merit-based. Participation in social programs influences later professional opportunities (Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela) and the ability to specialize (Chile and Peru). CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to study the impact of these programs on the professional development of the participants to design and implement quality improvement strategies tailored to each context.


Subject(s)
Humans , Physicians/supply & distribution , Program Evaluation , Rural Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Mandatory Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Workforce/legislation & jurisprudence , Medically Underserved Area , Peru , Argentina , Physicians/economics , Salaries and Fringe Benefits/economics , Salaries and Fringe Benefits/legislation & jurisprudence , Venezuela , Bolivia , Chile , Colombia , Rural Health Services/economics , Mandatory Programs/economics , Ecuador , Health Workforce/economics
2.
Rev. chil. pediatr ; 90(6): 675-682, dic. 2019. tab
Article in Spanish | LILACS | ID: biblio-1058200

ABSTRACT

Resumen: Este artículo se presenta como una reflexión ética y jurídica acerca de la tendencia actual de los pa dres a rechazar la vacunación de sus hijos en un régimen jurídico que establece la obligatoriedad de determinadas vacunas. Se analizan los principales argumentos que los padres usan para rechazar las vacunaciones obligatorias, y, en concreto: el temor a los efectos negativos que la vacunación pueda provocar en el menor; la violación del "derecho a la autonomía"; las creencias religiosas o pseudo- filosóficas; la resistencia a la intervención del Estado en asuntos personales o familiares. De esto, nace un necesario análisis ético sobre la vacunación infantil. Finalmente, se discute la responsabilidad de los padres y del Estado (autoridad sanitaria) en el cuidado de los menores de edad. La vacunación es un beneficio tanto para el inoculado como para la comunidad, la mejor política preventiva. Al mismo tiempo, se configura como un caso complejo que demanda un debate profundo, cuyo fin debe ser el tránsito desde un aparente conflicto entre los padres y el Estado, a una convergencia por el cuidado de los menores de edad. En otros términos, se recalca el hecho de que los padres, más allá del cum plimiento de un deber normativo heterogéneo, deben actuar motivados por la adhesión voluntaria al bien del hijo y de la comunidad.


Abstract: This article is an ethical and legal reflection about the current trend of parents to refuse vaccination of their children under a legal regime that establishes mandatory use of certain vaccines. We analyze the main arguments used by parents to refuse obligatory vaccination, i.e., the fear of the negative effects that vaccination may have on the child; the violation of the "right to autonomy"; religious or pseudo-philosophical beliefs; and the resistance to the State intervention in personal or family mat ters. Therefore, this statement implies a necessary ethical analysis of childhood vaccination. Finally, it will be discussed the responsibility of parents and the State -the health authority- in the care of mi nors. Vaccination is a benefit for both the inoculated and the community, the best preventive policy. At the same time, it is considered a complex case that demands a profound debate, whose purpose should be the transition from an apparent conflict between parents and the State, to convergence for the care of minors. In other words, it is emphasized the fact that parents, beyond the fulfillment of a heterogeneous normative duty, must act motivated by voluntary adherence to the best interest of the child and the community.


Subject(s)
Humans , Mandatory Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Mandatory Programs/ethics , Vaccination Refusal/legislation & jurisprudence , Vaccination Refusal/ethics , Parents , Philosophy , Religion , Chile , Personal Autonomy , Government Regulation , Anti-Vaccination Movement
3.
Rev. chil. infectol ; 34(6): 583-586, dic. 2017.
Article in Spanish | LILACS | ID: biblio-899763

ABSTRACT

Resumen A pesar del enorme impacto de las vacunas en la salud de la población, éstas han sido y son objeto de cuestionamientos por grupos que las consideran innecesarias o inseguras y argumentan que las personas tienen el derecho a decidir sobre si éstas deben ser administradas o no. Sin embargo, el uso de vacunas tiene connotaciones distintas a otras decisiones en salud, ya que no vacunar impacta no sólo al individuo, sino también a la comunidad que lo rodea. El inmunizar a un alto porcentaje de la población permite limitar la circulación de los agentes infecciosos, logrando la llamada inmunidad comunitaria que protege a los no vacunados por razones médicas o porque son muy pequeños. Por esta razón muchos países han definido las vacunas como obligatorias. Como Comité Consultivo de Inmunizaciones nos parece que esta estrategia es correcta; sin embargo, debe ser acompañada por una política de educación de la población y personal de salud sobre los beneficios y riesgos reales de las vacunas. Así mismo es necesario introducir mejoras en el sistema de notificación de reacciones adversas a vacunas haciéndolo más accesible. Adicionalmente, se debe dar respuesta oportuna a los afectados por supuestas o reales reacciones a vacunas, y en los casos de eventos adversos graves efectivamente asociados a vacunas. entregar cobertura económica y acompañamiento. Finalmente, es esencial la coordinación entre los diferentes actores y comunicadores para transmitir mensajes que generen confianza y respondan a las inquietudes de la población de hoy en día.


Although vaccines have had a tremendous impact in public health they are questioned by certain groups that consider them unnecessary or unsafe and argue in favor of the right to decide to be vaccinated or not. However vaccines must have special considerations because unlike other medical decisions, not vaccinating has consequences not only for the individual but also for other members of the community. Immunizing a high proportion of the population limits the circulation of an infectious agent attaining what is called herd immunity that protects the susceptible members of the group. For this reason many countries consider vaccination mandatory as a responsibility of every citizen. This committee agrees with this view but thinks other strategies should be implemented as well, such as special educational efforts for the public and parents addressing benefits and real risks of vaccinating. Also health care professionals should be trained in vaccines. The notification system for adverse events currently available should be improved and be more accessible. Persons truly affected by adverse events due to vaccination should receive on time responses and be offered psychological and financial support. Finally all stakeholders should make coordinated efforts to work together to deliver messages that answer concerns on vaccines and bring confidence back to the public.


Subject(s)
Humans , Societies, Medical , Vaccination/standards , Immunization Programs/standards , Mandatory Programs/standards , Vaccination Refusal/legislation & jurisprudence , Chile , Communicable Disease Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Risk Factors , Vaccination/legislation & jurisprudence , Immunization Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Mandatory Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Policy
4.
Professional Medical Journal-Quarterly [The]. 2010; 17 (1): 145-150
in English | IMEMR | ID: emr-98489

ABSTRACT

To evaluate the pattern and reasons of reluctance/ refusal to polio vaccination with an aim to gain insights and learn lessons during Polio campaign. Setting: Polio campaign days during 2009 in Muzaffar Garah district between January to April 2009. Cross sectional survey. Survey done during intensive polio days during the three campaigns this year by detailed interview with parents, senior members of the family regarding reluctance to administer oral polio drops in the Muzaffar Garah district. Reasons and frequency of reluctance were documented. After counseling the WHO team managed to convince part of the reluctant population. The data was once again collected from the unconvinced population of parents who declined till the end. During the survey there were 404 reluctant parents.236 [58%] of these were convinced and the remaining stayed unvaccinated despite counseling. Amongst the group that showed initial reluctance. 132 [32.5%] refused to cooperate due to religious misconceptions. Of the confirmed deniers 116 [69%] belonged to a conservative religious group The most easy to convince group was the group demanding monitory benefits for cooperating in Polio campaign 13 [7%]. People refuse Polio vaccination due to misinformation /misconception especially on religious grounds. The die hard refusals were mostly linked to religious reasons. Education of religious leaders is the way forward to drive Polio to extinction


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Immunization Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , National Health Programs , Mandatory Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Poliomyelitis/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Parents , World Health Organization , Patient Compliance , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL