Real-time PCR in infectious uveitis Donor eyes - Conselho ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HEALTH SEEKING BEHAVIOR OF THE FAMILIES OF CHILDREN WITH CATARACT ATTENDING AN EYE CLINIC IN RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL In Brazil, although primary health care is well established and easily accessible, primary eye care is not normally incorporated to it. Total delay in presentation in our study occurred mostly in seeking the specialized ophthalmologist who started treatment after the child had been seen by another health worker. Considering that half of caregivers sought directly an ophthalmologist as first health worker, a much lower proportion of delay on the second phase should be expected. Instead 11 (31.4%) out of these 35 children had delay at treatment presentation, mostly due to problems in referral or treatment in the public health system. Additionally, other 20 children firstly seen by pediatricians had delay at treatment presentation, half of them (10) by referral problems due to lack of knowledge of specialized centers or difficulty in making appointment mainly in the public health system and also, although much less frequently, in the private sector. Moreover, in other 5 of these 20 cases lack of pediatricians’ skills in diagnosing the problem was responsible for the delay. Applying the same criteria used in this study for educational level to the population of the state of Rio de Janeiro about 17.0% were classified as having low education, 50.0% medium education and 33% high education (21) . In the present study, similar figures were found for the parents’ educational level, respectively: 16.4%, 57.1% and 26.4%. This may suggest our sample is representative of the population of the state of Rio de Janeiro. However, the mother’s educational level in this setting was not a determinant in late presentation in this study. This finding contrasts with that of a similar study in Tanzania (23) . Furthermore, the gender of the child was not determinant in seeking for treatment as it is in some African and Asian settings (23-25) . In fact, the only two factors which showed significant negative relation to total late presentation were: having insurance and being the only child. The former was expected by some of the reasons mentioned above as a great number of children whose treatment was supported by NGO had already been seen or even treated in the public system before seeking or been referred to ICI. Comparison of this result is not possible due to lack of similar studies. Furthermore, being the only child as a protective factor against delay in presentation could suggest higher level of parents’ attention on their only child. In contrast, Mwende et al. (23) found that children with congenital cataract who had siblings were 4.40 (95% CI 1.38 to 14. 39) less likely to have a late presentation to hospital (after 12 months in their study) compared to only children in Tanzania. The fact that the study was performed in a specialized hospital could introduce some bias since parents who attend these hospitals tend to be more health concerned or conscious, more likely to have higher socioeconomic status. Moreover, even with the NGO covering most of the costs, expenditure with transportation could deter some families from looking for help. Also, some level of inaccuracy in recalling details of their health-seeking behavior could occur particularly in cases of longer follow-up. We considered the number of siblings at the day of interview which could not be same of that at the birth of the child. Therefore, association between this variable and total delay in presentation could be underestimated or overestimated. Table 1. Median age of child at detection by type of cataract and laterality Age of the child at detection (months) Median Range Lower quartile Upper quartile Frequency Type of cataract * Congenital 01 1 - 36 01.0 04.0 58 Developmental 30 18 - 73 21.5 51.0 12 Laterality** Bilateral 02 1 - 55 01.0 09.0 42 Unilateral 01 1 - 73 01.0 04.5 12 Total 02 1 - 73 01.0 08.0 70 *Mann- Whitney test= 7.5; p 3 months (%) Total Parents/relatives 31 ( 73.8) 13 ( 81.3) 44 ( 75.9) Pediatrician 07 ( 16.7) 02 ( 12.5) 09 ( 15.5) Other health worker 4 ( 9.5) 1 ( 6.2) 05 ( 8.6) Total 42 (100.0) 16 (100.0) 58 (100.0) Pearson χ 2 =0.3582; p=0.836 Table 3. Delay in presentation to treatment by first professional sought for help Professional Delay Ophthalmologist (%) Pediatrician (%) Total (%) Yes 11 ( 31.4) 20 ( 57.1) 31 ( 44.3) No 24 ( 68.6) 15 ( 42.9) 39 ( 55.7) Total 35 (100.0) 35 (100.0) 70 (100.0) Pearson χ 2 = 4.6898; p=0.03 276 Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2011;74(4):271-8
LEITE C, ZIN A Table 4. Characteristics associated with total delay Total presentation time ≤ 3 months > 3 months OR (95% CI) Adjusted OR (95% CI) n = 37 (%) n = 33 (%) p value p value Gender of child Male 24 (63.2) 14 (36.8) 2.50 (0.95 - 6.58) Female 13 (40.6) 19 (59.4) p=0.06 Mother’s age at child’s birth < 30 years 20 (51.3) 19 (48.7) 0.87 (0.34 - 2.23) ≥ 30 years 17 (54.8) 14 (45.2) p=0.77 Laterality of cataract Bilateral 21 (50.0) 21 (50.0) 0.75 (0.29 - 1.96) Unilateral 16 (57,1) 12 (42.9) p=0.56 Family history Negative 30 (51.7) 28 (48.3) 0.77 (0.22 - 2.69) Positive 07 (58.3) 05 (41.7) p=0.68 Number of siblings One or more siblings 18 (39.1) 28 (60.9) 0.17 (0.05 - 0.53) 0.16 (0.04 - 0.69) Only child 19 (79.2) 05 (20.8) p=0.001 p=0.014 Marital status of parents (at recognition) Married 33 (56.9) 25 (43.1) 2.64 (0.71 - 9.76) Other 04 (33.3) 08 (66.7) p=0.15 Who first noticed the problem Relatives 26 (49.1) 27 (50.9) 0.53 (0.17 - 1.63) Health workers 11 (64.7) 06 (35.3) p=0.26 Mother’s educational level Low (primary/none) 03 (27.3) 08 (72.7) 1.00 p=0.008 χ 2 trend=6.95 1.00 Medium (secondary) 19 (48.7) 20 (51.3) 0.39 (0.91 - 1.71) 0.74 (0.14 - 3.99) p=0.725 High (tertiary) 15 (75.0) 05 (25.0) 0.12 (0.02 - 0.66) 2.35 (0.17 - 33.17) p=0.53 Father’s educational level Low (primary/none) 04 (33.3) 08 (66.7) 1.00 p=0.018 χ 2 trend=5.58 1.00 Medium (secondary) 20 (48.8) 21 (51.2) 0.52 (0.14 - 2.02) 1.17 (0.24 - 5.73) p=0.85 High (tertiary) 13 (76.5) 04 (23.5) 0.15 (0.03 - 0.79) 1.32 (0.15 - 12.06) p=0.80 Economic category Class A+B 18 (66.7) 09 (33.3) 2.53 (0.89 - 7.10) Class C+D 19 (44.2) 24 (55.8) p=0.68 Household income ≤ 3 minimal salaries (MS) 16 (38.1) 26 (61.9) 1.00 p=0.002 χ 2 trend=9.82 1.00 4 - 6 MS 10 (66.7) 05 (33.3) 0.31 (0.09 - 1.06) 0.74 (0.14 - 3.83) p=0.72 > 6 MS 11 (84.6) 02 (15.4) 0.11 (0.02 - 0.57) 0.17 (0.01 - 2.79) p=0.21 Insurance No 13 (33.3) 26 (66.7) 0.15 (0.04 - 0.43) 0.17 (0.04 - 0.82) Yes 24 (77.4) 07 (22.6) p
Page 1: ISSN 0004-2749 versão impressa A r
Page 5 and 6: Paixão compartilhada por uma visã
Page 7 and 8: Chegou! A monoterapia de 1ª escolh
Page 9 and 10: TECNOLOGIA PARA A EFICÁCIA. 1-3 Fl
Page 11 and 12: PUBLICAÇÃO OFICIAL DO CONSELHO BR
Page 13 and 14: PUBLICAÇÃO OFICIAL DO CONSELHO BR
Page 15 and 16: EDITORIAL | EDITORIAL Fator de impa
Page 17 and 18: EDITORIAL | EDITORIAL Impact factor
Page 19 and 20: ARTIGO ORIGINAL | ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Page 21 and 22: NARIKAWA S, ET AL. REFERÊNCIAS 1.
Page 23 and 24: BARROS JN, ET AL. patients to gener
Page 27 and 28: FORTES FILHO JB, ET AL. Our study d
Page 31 and 32: SOARES JAS, ET AL. toxoplasmose con
Page 33 and 34: SANTOS FF, ET AL. number of patient
Page 35 and 36: SANTOS FF, ET AL. 9. Abe T, Tsuchid
Page 37 and 38: ROSSI LDF, ET AL. lham com habilita
Page 39 and 40: ROSSI LDF, ET AL. Tabela 2. Compara
Page 43 and 44: PORTES AV, ET AL. Tabela 2. Compara
Page 47 and 48: LEITE C, ZIN A Questionnarie. Catar
Page 49: LEITE C, ZIN A (Continuation questi
Page 55 and 56: TOMÉ VAV, ET AL. segunda epidemia,
Page 59 and 60: AKAISHI PMS, ET AL. no need to deta
Page 61 and 62: SOLARI HP, ET AL. corneal dystrophy
Page 63 and 64: RELATO DE CASO | CASE REPORT Intrav
Page 65 and 66: VENTURA AACM, ET AL. ranibizumab gi
Page 67 and 68: LAVEZZO MM, ET AL. A B C D E F Figu
Page 69 and 70: LAVEZZO MM, ET AL. tração retinia
Page 71 and 72: LAVEZZO MM, ET AL. grafia do OD evi
Page 73 and 74: LAVEZZO MM, ET AL. via, pequenas qu
Page 75 and 76: FENDI LI, ET AL. rate (7-13) , howe
Page 77 and 78: FENDI LI, ET AL. Table 2. Postopera
Page 79 and 80: FENDI LI, ET AL. Table 3. Quality o
Page 81 and 82: FRAGOSO YD, ET AL. evidence for met
Page 83 and 84: FRAGOSO YD, ET AL. 18. Kubo E, Tsuz
Page 85 and 86: INSTRUÇÕES PARA AUTORES | INSTRUC
Page 87 and 88: Capítulos de livros Gómez de Lia

Real-time PCR in infectious uveitis Donor eyes - Conselho ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?