Autora: Sónia Pintassilgo


Artigo|Candeias P, Alarcão V, Stefanovska-Petkovska M, Santos O, Virgolino A, Pintassilgo S, Pascoal PM, Costa AS and Machado FL (2021) Reducing Sexual and Reproductive Health Inequities Between Natives and Migrants: A Delphi Consensus for Sustainable Cross-Cultural Healthcare Pathways. Front. Public Health 9:656454


Resumo: The increasing number of international migrants (ranging from 153 million in 1990 to ~272 million in 2019) brought to attention the wide variation of national contexts concerning the policy measures to protect migrants’ rights and ensuring their equal access to basic and essential services, namely in health. Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) is a key component to the overall health and quality of life and is impacted by power inequities inherent to society’s institutions, environment, economics, and culture. In Portugal, guidelines for intervention in SRH are insufficient, a gap that is more pronounced with migrant populations due to the absence of culturally sensitive indicators to assess and monitor SRH. The aim of this work was 2-fold: to identify good practices in the SRH field, with a particular focus, whenever possible, on migrant populations, and to identify relevant and inclusive indicators to monitor SRH in Portugal. A Delphi panel (via online survey) with 66 experts (researchers, teachers, and health professionals) and 16 stakeholders (non-governmental organizations, civil society, and governmental organizations) was implemented in two rounds. Panelists were asked to state their level of agreement (5-point Likert-type scale) regarding four different SRH areas: Sexual Health, Reproductive Health, Social-Structural Factors, and Good Practices. Items were based on literature review and a World Café with 15 experts and stakeholders. Participation rate was 68% and response rate was 97% on the first round. From the initial list of 142 items, a total of 118 (83%) items were approved by consensus. Findings may provide extended opportunities for the healthcare system to engage in better informed decisions and more inclusive and integrative strategies regarding SRH, contributing to build political measures toward sexual and reproductive justice.


Autora: Violeta Alarcão


Artigo | Alarcão, V.; Stefanovska-Petkovska, M.; Virgolino, A.; Santos, O.; Costa, A. S. (2021), Intersections of immigration and sexual/reproductive health: An umbrella literature review with a focus on health equity, In Social Sciences, 10(2), 63.


Resumo: Identifying the opportunities and barriers of promoting and fulfilling the sexual health rights of migrants remains a challenge that requires systematic assessment. Such an assessment would include estimating the influence of acculturation processes on sexual and reproductive health, and mapping intersectional inequities that influence migrants’ sexual and reproductive health in comparison with the native population. The aim of this research was to locate, select, and critically assess/summarize scientific evidence regarding the social, cultural, and structural factors influencing migrants’ sexual and reproductive health outcomes in comparison with native population. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) standards was undertaken. Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from their start date until June 2019. The quality of the included articles was determined using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews tool (AMSTAR 2). From the 36 selected studies, only 12 compared migrant with native populations. Overall, the findings indicated that migrants tend to underuse maternal health services and have an increased risk of poor sexual and reproductive health outcomes. Specific intersectional inequities were identified and discussed.


Consultar: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/2/63

Autora: Susana Mourão


Artigo | Mourão, S.; Bernardes, S. F.; Carvalho, H. (2021), Assessing caregivers’ adherence to child primary care recommendations: development and validation of a scale In Child Care in Practice


Resumo: Introduction: Caregivers’ adherence to Child Primary Care (CPC) health recommendations is particularly relevant for the protection of children’s health and promotion of their optimal development. Nevertheless, there are currently no measures to assess it, as the majority of measures are focused on pharmacological treatment adherence instead of adherence to preventive health recommendations. Thus, this paper describes the development and validation of a new instrument to assess caregivers’ adherence to CPC health recommendations regarding children aged between 2 years and 6 years old, which would also be sensitive to the specificities of caregivers in more vulnerable conditions—the CPC-Adherence Scale. Methods: Six hundred sixty-two parents (93.4% women; 6.6% immigrant), living in Portugal and with children aged between 2 years and 6 years, participated in a cross-sectional study using a paper or electronic protocol. The protocol was composed by: (1) the CPC- Adherence Scale; (2) questions regarding experiences in CPC; (3) the European Task Force on Patient Evaluation of General Practice Care (EUROPEP); (4) socio-demographic information. Results: The exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a 2-factor solution: (1) Adherence to a safe psychomotor development (n = 14 items; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.894); (2) Adherence to nutritional counseling (n = 6 items; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.608). The CPC-Adherence Scale showed good content and criterion-related validity. It discriminated levels of adherence of caregivers with different levels of knowledge about CPC recommendations, satisfaction with care and different socio-economic and immigrant t status. Discussion: The CPC-Adherence Scale is an innovative and promising measure that may play a relevant role on future research and intervention for the promotion of adherence behaviors in a primary prevention context.


Consultar: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13575279.2020.1776682