Time interval between onset of symptoms and COVID-19 testing in Brazilian state capitals, August 2020. / Intervalo de tempo decorrido entre o início dos sintomas e a realização do exame para COVID-19 nas capitais brasileiras, agosto de 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze notifications of flu-like syndrome according to the time interval between onset of symptoms and testing for COVID-19. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using records of flu-like syndrome cases containing results of COVID-19 diagnostic tests in the Brazilian state capitals and Federal District, held on the e-SUS Notifica system, from March 1st, 2020 to August 18th, 2020. The time interval between symptom onset and testing was compared using the ANOVA test, classifying it according to test adequacy/timeliness. RESULTS: Taking 1,942,514 notifications, average time between symptom onset and testing was 10.2 days (±17.1). Among those tested, females (55.1%), people aged 20-39 years (43.8%), and the Southeast region of Brazil (43.0%) predominated. 58.8% of IgM ELISA tests were performed at an adequate time while 68.0% of rapid antigen tests were not performed at an adequate time. CONCLUSION: Inadequacy was found between symptom onset and time taken to test for COVID-19 in the Brazilian regions.

Time interval between onset of symptoms and COVID-19 testing in Brazilian state capitals, August 2020

Resumo Objetivo Analisar as notificações de síndrome gripal segundo o intervalo de tempo decorrido entre início dos sintomas e realização do exame para COVID-19. Métodos Estudo transversal, utilizando registros de casos de síndrome gripal contendo resultados de testes diagnósticos da COVID-19 nas capitais brasileiras e no Distrito Federal, no sistema e-SUS Notifica, entre 1º/março/2020 e 18/agosto/2020. Comparou-se o intervalo de tempo entre início dos sintomas e realização do exame (teste ANOVA), classificando-o segundo a adequação/oportunidade do exame. Resultados Entre 1.942.514 notificações, o tempo médio entre início dos sintomas e execução dos testes foi de 10,2 dias (±17,1). Entre testados, predominou o sexo feminino (55,1%), idade de 20-39 anos (43,8%) e região Sudeste (43,0%). O teste ELISA IgM foi realizado em tempo adequado para 58,8%;e o teste rápido-antígeno, em tempo inadequado para 68,0%. Conclusão Observou-se inadequação entre início dos sintomas e realização dos testes para COVID-19 nas regiões brasileiras. Resumen Objetivo Analizar las notificaciones de síndrome gripal según el intervalo de tiempo entre el inicio de los síntomas y el examen de COVID-19. Métodos Estudio transversal utilizando registros de casos de síndrome gripal que contienen resultados de pruebas diagnósticas de COVID-19 en las capitales brasileñas y el Distrito Federal del sistema e-SUS Notifica, entre 1/marzo/2020 y 18/agosto/2020. El intervalo de tiempo se comparó entre el inicio de los síntomas y la realización del examen mediante la prueba ANOVA, clasificándolo según la adecuación/ oportunidad del examen. Resultados Entre 1.942.514 notificaciones, el tiempo promedio entre el inicio de los síntomas y la ejecución del examen fue de 10,2 días (±17,1). Entre los evaluados, predominaron las mujeres (55,1%), 20-39 años (43,8%) y la región Sudeste (43,0%). El ELISA IgM se realizó en momento adecuado para 58,8% y la prueba de Antígeno Rápido en momento inadecuado para 68,0%. Conclusión Se constata inadecuación de tiempo entre el inicio de los síntomas y las pruebas para COVID-19 en las regiones brasileñas. Objective To analyze notifications of flu-like syndrome according to the time interval between onset of symptoms and testing for COVID-19. Methods This was a cross-sectional study using records of flu-like syndrome cases containing results of COVID-19 diagnostic tests in the Brazilian state capitals and Federal District, held on the e-SUS Notifica system, from March 1st, 2020 to August 18th, 2020. The time interval between symptom onset and testing was compared using the ANOVA test, classifying it according to test adequacy/timeliness. Results Taking 1,942,514 notifications, average time between symptom onset and testing was 10.2 days (±17.1). Among those tested, females (55.1%), people aged 20-39 years (43.8%), and the Southeast region of Brazil (43.0%) predominated. 58.8% of IgM ELISA tests were performed at an adequate time while 68.0% of rapid antigen tests were not performed at an adequate time. Conclusion Inadequacy was found between symptom onset and time taken to test for COVID-19 in the Brazilian regions.

Eating self- efficacy in overweight and obese children and adolescents: integrative review of instruments

Among them, we highlight hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, which influence the rise in disability and the risk of premature death, affecting the quality of life and generating increased personal and public spending for control and prevention®;currently, these issues have been a significant risk factor for complications of COVID-19(2). Self-efficacy is a measurable and modifiable factor of human behavior. [...]identifying instruments that measure the construct "self-efficacy of children and adolescents," both for prevention and control of overweight and obesity, becomes relevant. Study protocol The guiding question was developed using the PICO strategy, as follows: P (population) - children and adolescents with overweight or obesity;I (intervention) - instruments that assessed self-efficacy;C (comparison) - there was no comparison;O (outcomes or results) - construct of self-efficacy to prevent overweight and obesity. [...]the research question was, "What are the instruments available to assess self-efficacy in preventing overweight and obesity in children and/or adolescents?" It was adopted the age range of 0 to 19 years, as classified by the World Health Organization: a child is a person who is up to 9 years old, and an adolescent is someone at the chronological limit between 10 and 19 years old(9). An instrument was adapted(10) containing 12 items to enable data extraction: authors;year of publication;the country where the study was conducted;the purpose of the study;nutritional status of study participants;age range of the investigated public;the language of the instrument;psychometric characteristics of the instrument;the form of application (self-reported or interview);the number of items;the dimensions of the instrument;and sample items.