ABSTRACT
La detección del sedentarismo en adultos mediante instrumentos sencillos y útiles es un objetivo primordial tanto en salud pública como en el ámbito clínico, ya que este factor de riesgo es una de las causas más importantes de enfermedad no transmisible en el mundo y es muy prevalente en las sociedades desarrolladas como la española. Se describen 2 instrumentos validados, sencillos y útiles para detectar y/o manejar el sedentarismo en adultos: a) el cuestionario internacional de actividad física en su versión corta, y b) el podómetro, para cuantificar el número de pasos realizados en un día. Aumentar los niveles de actividad física es importante para la prevención primaria de algunas enfermedades crónicas (cardiopatía coronaria, diabetes tipo 2, osteoporosis, cáncer de colon) y para mejorar la calidad de vida. El personal sanitario debe conocer el grado de motivación y la disponibilidad del paciente y su familia para el cambio de conducta hacia la actividad física. Las actividades físicas de intensidad moderada no presentan prácticamente ninguna contraindicación y los riesgos son muy escasos
The detection of physical inactivity in adults, using simple and useful tools is primary objective in both public health and in clinical settings, since this risk factor is one of the major causes of non-communicable disease in the world, and is very prevalent in developed societies such as in Spain. Two validated instruments are described that are simple and useful for detecting and/or monitoring physical inactivity in adults: (i) the international physical activity questionnaire in its short version, and (ii) the pedometer to measure the number of steps taken in a day. Increased levels of physical activity are important for the primary prevention of some chronic diseases (coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, colon cancer) and to improve the quality of life. Medical personnel must determine the motivation level and the availability of patients and their families to change their behavior towards physical activity. Moderate-intensity physical activities have hardly any contraindications and the risks are few
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Sedentary Behavior/ethnology , Exercise/physiology , Exercise Movement Techniques/classification , Exercise Movement Techniques/education , Primary Health Care/ethics , Primary Health Care/methods , Sedentary Behavior/history , Exercise/psychology , Exercise Movement Techniques/methods , Exercise Movement Techniques/psychology , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Primary Health CareABSTRACT
The detection of physical inactivity in adults, using simple and useful tools is primary objective in both public health and in clinical settings, since this risk factor is one of the major causes of non-communicable disease in the world, and is very prevalent in developed societies such as in Spain. Two validated instruments are described that are simple and useful for detecting and/or monitoring physical inactivity in adults: (i)the international physical activity questionnaire in its short version, and (ii)the pedometer to measure the number of steps taken in a day. Increased levels of physical activity are important for the primary prevention of some chronic diseases (coronary heart disease, type2 diabetes, osteoporosis, colon cancer) and to improve the quality of life. Medical personnel must determine the motivation level and the availability of patients and their families to change their behavior towards physical activity. Moderate-intensity physical activities have hardly any contraindications and the risks are few.
Subject(s)
Exercise , Primary Health Care , Sedentary Behavior , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Algorithms , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Self Report , Young AdultABSTRACT
Objetivo: El objetivo de este trabajo es realizar una evaluación económica de las intervenciones sobre tabaquismo en atención primaria. Diseño: Análisis de coste-efectividad (ACE) comparando 2 estrategias de intervención: intensiva y breve. Emplazamiento: Pacientes de una consulta de medicina de familia en un centro de salud (CS) periurbano. Participantes: Todas las historias con etiqueta de fumadores; 235 y 37 en el grupo de intervención breve e intensiva, respectivamente. Intervenciones: La intervención breve (IB) se realizó en el contexto de otro motivo de consulta (1-5 min). La intervención intensiva (II) fue exclusivamente para tabaquismo (10-15 min). Mediciones principales: Los datos de efectividad son obtenidos de la evaluación de la intervención sobre los fumadores de dicha consulta después de 6 años. Empleamos costes sanitarios directos. Excluimos fármacos, costes no sanitarios e indirectos. Aplicamos la tasa de coste-efectividad incremental (ICER) de las intervenciones breve, intensiva y total (breve + intensiva), comparando no intervenir con cada tipo de intervención e II respecto a la IB y análisis probabilístico para tratar la incertidumbre. Resultados: El coste por paciente abstinente, globalmente, fue 406,74 €. Para la IB fue de 129,83 € y para la II, 1.034,99 €. ICER intervención total=498,87 €/paciente que deja de fumar. ICER IB=235,32 €/paciente que deja de fumar. ICER II=1.232,85 €/paciente que deja de fumar. ICER II/IB=7.772,25 €/paciente que deja de fumar. Conclusiones: Las intervenciones sobre tabaquismo en AP son eficientes. Una propuesta para el abordaje del tabaquismo en AP, desde una perspectiva coste-efectiva, podría ser la IB sobre todos los fumadores e II sobre aquellos con más dificultad para abandonar(AU)
Objective: The aim of this work is to realize an economic evaluation of the smoking interventions in Primary Care (PC). Design: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis comparing two intervention strategies; intensive and brief. Setting: Patients in a general practitioner's list in a peri-urban Health Centre. Participants: All the medical histories labelled as smokers; 235 and 37 in the group of brief and intensive intervention respectively. Interventions: The brief intervention (BI) was made in the context of consultation for another purpose (1-5minutes). The intensive intervention (II) was exclusively for smoking consultation (10-15minutes).Main measurements The effectiveness data are obtained by the evaluation of intervention for smokers, in a general practitioner's list, after 6 years. We employ direct sanitary costs. We exclude drugs, non- sanitary and indirect costs. We apply the valuation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the brief interventions, intensive and total (brief + intensive) to compare not taking part with each type of intervention and II with regard to BI and probabilistic analysis to treat the uncertainty. Results: The total cost per abstinent patient was 406,74 €: 129,83 € for BI and 1.034,99 € for I.I.ICER Total intervention = €498, 87/patient who stops smoking. ICER BI = €235, 32/patient who stops smoking. ICER II=€1.232, 85/patient who stops smoking. ICER II/BI= €7.772,25/patient who stops smoking. Conclusions: Smoking interventions in PC are efficient. A proposal for smoking intervention in PC from an effective cost perspective could be an BI for smokers and an II on those who find more difficult to leave the habit(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Primary Health Care/methods , Primary Health Care/trends , Cost Efficiency Analysis , Tobacco Smoke Pollution/economics , Smoking/economics , Primary Health Care , Cost-Benefit Analysis , 50303 , Cross-Sectional Studies/methods , Cross-Sectional Studies/trends , Cross-Sectional StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to realize an economic evaluation of the smoking interventions in Primary Care (PC). DESIGN: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis comparing two intervention strategies; intensive and brief. SETTING: Patients in a general practitioner's list in a peri-urban Health Centre. PARTICIPANTS: All the medical histories labelled as smokers; 235 and 37 in the group of brief and intensive intervention respectively. INTERVENTIONS: The brief intervention (BI) was made in the context of consultation for another purpose (1-5 minutes). The intensive intervention (II) was exclusively for smoking consultation (10-15 minutes). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The effectiveness data are obtained by the evaluation of intervention for smokers, in a general practitioner's list, after 6 years. We employ direct sanitary costs. We exclude drugs, non- sanitary and indirect costs. We apply the valuation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the brief interventions, intensive and total (brief + intensive) to compare not taking part with each type of intervention and II with regard to BI and probabilistic analysis to treat the uncertainty. RESULTS: The total cost per abstinent patient was 406,74 : 129,83 for BI and 1.034,99 for I.I. ICER Total intervention = 498, 87/patient who stops smoking. ICER BI = 235, 32/patient who stops smoking. ICER II = 1.232, 85/patient who stops smoking. ICER II/BI = 7.772,25/patient who stops smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking interventions in PC are efficient. A proposal for smoking intervention in PC from an effective cost perspective could be an BI for smokers and an II on those who find more difficult to leave the habit.
