Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Revista De Gestao E Secretariado-Gesec ; 14(4):4776-4793, 2023.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-2322688

ABSTRACT

Notorious is that, over just over 100 years, marketing has undergone changes, especially in the conceptual area, causing confusion in the correct use of expressions and use of these expressions. Knowing how to differentiate societal marketing from social marketing it is important for them to be used in order to achieve the objectives that are conceptually proposed to them. Societal marketing focuses on accepting a product, while social marketing is focused on a cause that can produce a change in social behavior. Given the problem of the pandemic that has plagued the world since December 2019, the importance of social marketing in the attempt to cause changes in the behavior of citizens. This theoretical essay aims to show the importance of social marketing in the face of the PANDEMIC of COVID-19. It also aims to clearly conceptualize societal marketing and social marketing, as well as to show the social problem caused by the new corocavirus.

2.
Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial ; 57, 2021.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1444466

ABSTRACT

Due to urgency and demand of a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, numerous Sars-CoV-2 immunoassays have been rapidly developed. Objective: This study aimed at assessing the performance of rapid Sars-CoV-2 antibody test in comparison to high-throughput serological assays. Methods: A total of 86 serum samples were evaluated in the three assays: a lateral flow immunoassay - Wondfo Sars-CoV-2 Antibody Test (WRT) - and two chemiluminescence immunoassays: Elecsys Anti-Sars-CoV-2 (ECLIA), and Sars-CoV-2 IgG (CMIA-IgG). Results: The estimated diagnostic sensitivities of serological tests in the evaluation of serum samples from the epidemiological survey were: WRT 59% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43.4%-72.9%], ECLIA 66.7% (51%-79.4%), and CMIA-IgG 61.5% (47.1%-73%). Meanwhile, the estimated diagnostic specificity was for WRT 78.7% (95% CI 65.1%-88%), ECLIA 72.3% (58.2%-83.1%), and CMIA-IgG 76.6% (74%-95.5%). The sensitivity and specificity values were lower than manufacturers' claimed. Although 16.2% (14/86) of serological results were discordant among the three Sars-CoV-2 serological assays, the degree of agreement by the kappa index was adequate: WRT/CMIA-IgG [0.757 (95% CI 0.615-0.899)], WRT/ECLIA [0.715 (0.565-0.864)], and ECLIA/CMIA-IgG [0.858 (0.748-0.968)]. Conclusion: The serological testing may be a useful diagnostic tool, which reinforces its careful evaluation, and, as well as the correct time to use it. © 2021 Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia. All rights reserved.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL