[Unsafe abortion in Pernambuco State, Brazil, 1996-2006]. / Magnitude do aborto inseguro em Pernambuco, Brasil, 1996 a 2006.

This study estimates the total number of unsafe abortions and the ratio of unsafe abortions to live births in the State of Pernambuco, Brazil, and in the State's micro-regions (GERES) from 1996 to 2006. A descriptive, ecological, time trend study was performed on the ratio of unsafe abortions to live births. The number of hospital admissions from complications of abortions was obtained from the Hospital Information System (SIH/SUS). The Alan Guttmacher Institute methodology was used to estimate the number of unsafe abortions. The majority of admissions and estimated unsafe abortions occurred in the 1st and 4th GERES. As for the ratio of unsafe abortions to live births, there was an upward trend in the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th GERES and a decrease in the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 8th GERES, but the trends were only statistically significant in the 1st,5th, 10th, and 11th GERES. In conclusion, Pernambuco showed a high abortion-related hospitalization rate from 1996 to 2007. The estimated number of unsafe abortions was high, with an average of 56,457 per year, 4,705 per month, or 157 per day.

[Evaluation of the capacity for governance of a State Health Department in monitoring and evaluation of basic health care provision--lessons learned]. / Avaliação da capacidade de governo de uma secretaria estadual de saúde para o monitoramento e avaliação da Atenção Básica: lições relevantes.

The decentralization of the SUS requires state health departments to assume new powers as the monitoring and evaluation of Basic Care. This article aims to evaluate the "capacity for governance" of a State Health Northeastern Brazilian Department in monitoring and evaluation of Basic Care. From the technical cooperation held via component III of Proesf, key health care managers were interviewed, strategical documents were analyzed, and participatory observation of activities was carried out at a training centre, with a "contend analysis" procedure. Among the results, are: absence of "government project", problems of physical infrastructure, human resources and material, with low professional qualification in the use of information systems, monitoring and evaluation, and strategic planning, promoting and fragile bureaucratic work use of epidemiological data. In 2006, the Department used federal resources to strengthen the monitoring and evaluation of primary care by expanding its physical infrastructure, acquiring equipment and training for staff, without investing its own resource. To conclude, the Health Department has experienced difficulties in adjusting to decentralization, with the introduction of new working procedures into the institution.