Efeitos de uma intervenção de aconselhamento de estilo de vida para trabalhadores da Atenção Básica: um ensaio clínico randomizado

• Autor(a) principal: Paixão, Andresa Pereira da
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Tipo de documento: Trabalho de conclusão de curso
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFSCAR
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/13133
• topic: Saúde do Trabalhador; Promoção da Saúde; Local de trabalho; Atenção Básica; CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::SAUDE COLETIVA::MEDICINA PREVENTIVA; CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::SAUDE COLETIVA::SAUDE PUBLICA

INTRODUCTION: Primary Care (AB) workers play an essential role at the entrance point of the Unified Health System (SUS). A healthier lifestyle for these professionals can contribute to improvements in their health conditions, as well as collaborating in the multiplication of health promotion and disease prevention information for SUS users. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effects of a lifestyle counseling intervention for AB workers in the city of São Carlos-SP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a randomized clinical trial conducted in 28 health units in AB. After recruitment, 86 workers from the municipality's network showed interest in participating in the research and were randomly allocated to the intervention (IG) (n = 43) or control (CG) (n = 43) groups. An intervention was offered involving four 40-minute monthly face-to-face meetings, which presented lifestyle advice, delivery of educational materials, establishment of an action plan, and remote monitoring via motivational and guidance messages. The sociodemographic questionnaire and the Individual Lifestyle Profile (PEVI) instrument were applied. The IG and CG were evaluated at the end of the program (one month) and three months after the intervention (follow up). The differences in mean PEVI scores between the pre, post and follow up moments were compared using Generalized Estimation Equations. RESULTS: The sample was composed 100% by women, with an average age of 42.2 (± 7.8) and 42.3 (± 12.0) for the IG and CG, respectively. After the intervention and in the follow-up period, the IG improved the general lifestyle (p = 0.048) and the nutritional component of the respective instrument (p = 0.010) when compared to the CG. CONCLUSION: The program was effective in improving the lifestyle.