MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3110316502

Incorporação de Tecnologias em Saúde: Brasil na Vanguarda: The incorporation of Health Technologies: Brazil at the forefront

2012· article· pt· W3110316502 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helaine Carneiro Capucho

Notice bibliographique

RevueRevista Brasileira de Farmácia Hospitalar e Serviços de Saúde · 2012
Typearticle
Languept
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiquePublic Health in Brazil
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHealth technologyPharmacyPosition (finance)Health careRelation (database)Political scienceBusinessMedicinePublic administrationLawComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Twenty years after the enactment of the Lei Orgânica da Saude1 [Health Organic Law],which created the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS), Brazil changes it with the enactmentof Law No. 12,401/112, the Lei da Integralidade do SUS [SUS Integrality Law]. It provides fortherapeutic care and the incorporation of health technology. Despite the delay in defining howthe SUS would update itself, the enactment of this law occurred in an important time for thecountry, which is rapidly growing and in a better position of strength to move toward evidencebased technological updates.The law establishes that the incorporation, exclusion or change of medications, products andprocedures, as well as the development or change of clinical protocols and therapeutic guidelines,should be based on reports taking into account scientific evidence concerning the efficiency,accuracy, effectiveness and safety of medications, products or procedures. Additionally, it shouldcontain a comparative economic evaluation of the benefits and costs of new technology inrelation to already implemented technology, or in relation to home care, outpatient or hospitalcare, when appropriate2. These changes place Brazil among a select group of countries that havealready adopted this model, such as England, Canada, Spain, Scotland, and Australia.The standards that are now contained in the federal law have always been objects of discussionin hospitals within the pharmacy and therapeutic committees, but it is known that there is greatdifficulty in putting these standards into practice, which has been a challenge for pharmacists.The evaluation and recommendation to incorporate new technologies within the SUS isalso defined by a committee, the National Committee of Technology Incorporation in the SUS(CONITEC), created by the SUS Integrality Law. CONITEC is coordinated by the Departmentof Science, Technology and Strategic Inputs (SCTIE) and also has the responsibility of updatingthe National List of Essential Medication (RENAME).The role of CONITEC’s Executive Secretariat, which is exercised by the Department of Managementand Incorporation of SCTIR, is to manage and coordinate CONITEC’s activities as well as to providereports on technology while considering scientific evidence, containing an economic assessment and theimpact of technologies within the SUS. To ensure that society has access to this decision-making process,these reports will be freely accessible to stakeholders via the Brazilian Ministry of Health website3.The availability to society of conclusive reports concerning CONITEC’s decisions willprovide transparency for the process and also guide decision-making on the part of SUSmanagers and also for public and private health institutions. Additionally, the government’sjudiciary branch can use these reports to support its decisions concerning related processes3.This entire process is based on very recent science in Brazil, but science that has spread very rapidly, especially in hospitals, which is the assessment of health technologies (ATS). Suchscience is defined by the Ministry of Health as a “continuous process of the analysis and synthesisof benefits for healthcare, and the economic and social consequences of the employment oftechnologies, considering aspects such as safety, accuracy, efficacy, effectiveness, costs, costeffectiveness and also equity, as well as the ethical, cultural and environmental impacts involvedin its use.”4The ATS’ objective is to support decision-making concerning the incorporation andmonitoring of technology, whether within the scope of each health institution or within the

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,022
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,073
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0220,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,002
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0050,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,339
Écart entre enseignants0,301 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRevista Brasileira de Farmácia Hospitalar e Serviços de SaúdeMême sujetPublic Health in BrazilTravaux en français237 207