Manejo da epilepsia na rede básica de saúde no Brasil: os profissionais estão preparados?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess attitudes and beliefs concerning epilepsy held by physicians and allied health professionals who work in the primary care network in Brazil. METHODS: The data were collected during a national family and community medicine conference held in Rio de Janeiro in 2004, which was attended by 1,200 health professionals from throughout the country. Two questionnaires were used, one for physicians and another for nonphysician health workers. RESULTS: A total of 598 conference participants (345 physicians and 253 nonphysician health professionals) completed a questionnaire. Both the physicians and the nonphysician health professionals had acceptable personal attitudes towards persons with epilepsy. According to data from 286 physicians who provided information, the estimated mean percentage of individuals with epilepsy in the populations cared for by the physicians' health care systems in the preceding year was 0.78% (range, 0 to 8%; median = 0.37%). The estimated mean percentage of seizure-free patients was 60%. The estimated mean percentage of persons on monotherapy was 55%. The estimated mean percentage of referrals to a neurologist was 59%. The estimated mean percentage of patients who were working or studying was 56%. Of the 345 physicians, 252 of them (73%) reported not feeling confident about managing individuals with epilepsy, whereas 84 (24%) felt confident, and 9 (3%) were not sure. Of the 252 physicians who did not feel confident, 226 (90%) said that they would participate in a training program to improve the quality of the care provided to individuals with epilepsy. CONCLUSIONS: The professionals participating in the study indicated that the primary care system has the essential elements needed to provide comprehensive epilepsy care, including professional personnel who want to improve their skills. However, establishing an efficient, effective program of epilepsy management in the primary care network will require an effective referral network, regular distribution of antiepileptic drugs, the close monitoring of epilepsy management by using the federal primary health information system, and the ongoing education of health professionals, with emphasis on psychological support and the inclusion in society of individuals with epilepsy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".