Institutional and matrix support and its relationship with primary healthcare
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista de Saúde Pública |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102015000100241 |
Resumo: | OBJECTIVE To analyze whether the level of institutional and matrix support is associated with better certification of primary healthcare teams.METHODS In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated two kinds of primary healthcare support – 14,489 teams received institutional support and 14,306 teams received matrix support. Logistic regression models were applied. In the institutional support model, the independent variable was “level of support” (as calculated by the sum of supporting activities for both modalities). In the matrix support model, in turn, the independent variables were the supporting activities. The multivariate analysis has considered variables with p < 0.20. The model was adjusted by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.RESULTS The teams had institutional and matrix supporting activities (84.0% and 85.0%), respectively, with 55.0% of them performing between six and eight activities. For the institutional support, we have observed 1.96 and 3.77 chances for teams who had medium and high levels of support to have very good or good certification, respectively. For the matrix support, the chances of their having very good or good certification were 1.79 and 3.29, respectively. Regarding to the association between institutional support activities and the certification, the very good or good certification was positively associated with self-assessment (OR = 1.95), permanent education (OR = 1.43), shared evaluation (OR = 1.40), and supervision and evaluation of indicators (OR = 1.37). In regards to the matrix support, the very good or good certification was positively associated with permanent education (OR = 1.50), interventions in the territory (OR = 1.30), and discussion in the work processes (OR = 1.23).CONCLUSIONS In Brazil, supporting activities are being incorporated in primary healthcare, and there is an association between the level of support, both matrix and institutional, and the certification result. |
id |
USP-23_ef0d4917cd812c91ae2a24ce6b36c921 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0034-89102015000100241 |
network_acronym_str |
USP-23 |
network_name_str |
Revista de Saúde Pública |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Institutional and matrix support and its relationship with primary healthcarePrimary Health Care, organization & administrationHealth Planning SupportCross-Sectional StudiesOBJECTIVE To analyze whether the level of institutional and matrix support is associated with better certification of primary healthcare teams.METHODS In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated two kinds of primary healthcare support – 14,489 teams received institutional support and 14,306 teams received matrix support. Logistic regression models were applied. In the institutional support model, the independent variable was “level of support” (as calculated by the sum of supporting activities for both modalities). In the matrix support model, in turn, the independent variables were the supporting activities. The multivariate analysis has considered variables with p < 0.20. The model was adjusted by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.RESULTS The teams had institutional and matrix supporting activities (84.0% and 85.0%), respectively, with 55.0% of them performing between six and eight activities. For the institutional support, we have observed 1.96 and 3.77 chances for teams who had medium and high levels of support to have very good or good certification, respectively. For the matrix support, the chances of their having very good or good certification were 1.79 and 3.29, respectively. Regarding to the association between institutional support activities and the certification, the very good or good certification was positively associated with self-assessment (OR = 1.95), permanent education (OR = 1.43), shared evaluation (OR = 1.40), and supervision and evaluation of indicators (OR = 1.37). In regards to the matrix support, the very good or good certification was positively associated with permanent education (OR = 1.50), interventions in the territory (OR = 1.30), and discussion in the work processes (OR = 1.23).CONCLUSIONS In Brazil, supporting activities are being incorporated in primary healthcare, and there is an association between the level of support, both matrix and institutional, and the certification result.Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo2015-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102015000100241Revista de Saúde Pública v.49 2015reponame:Revista de Saúde Públicainstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USP10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049005519info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSantos,Alaneir de Fátima dosMachado,Antônio Thomaz Gonzaga da MattaReis,Clarice Magalhães Rodrigues dosAbreu,Daisy Maria XavierAraújo,Lucas Henrique Lobato deRodrigues,Simone CristinaLima,Ângela Maria de Lourdes Dayrell deJorge,Alzira de OliveiraFonseca Sobrinho,Délcioeng2015-10-28T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-89102015000100241Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=0034-8910&lng=pt&nrm=isoONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevsp@org.usp.br||revsp1@usp.br1518-87870034-8910opendoar:2015-10-28T00:00Revista de Saúde Pública - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Institutional and matrix support and its relationship with primary healthcare |
title |
Institutional and matrix support and its relationship with primary healthcare |
spellingShingle |
Institutional and matrix support and its relationship with primary healthcare Santos,Alaneir de Fátima dos Primary Health Care, organization & administration Health Planning Support Cross-Sectional Studies |
title_short |
Institutional and matrix support and its relationship with primary healthcare |
title_full |
Institutional and matrix support and its relationship with primary healthcare |
title_fullStr |
Institutional and matrix support and its relationship with primary healthcare |
title_full_unstemmed |
Institutional and matrix support and its relationship with primary healthcare |
title_sort |
Institutional and matrix support and its relationship with primary healthcare |
author |
Santos,Alaneir de Fátima dos |
author_facet |
Santos,Alaneir de Fátima dos Machado,Antônio Thomaz Gonzaga da Matta Reis,Clarice Magalhães Rodrigues dos Abreu,Daisy Maria Xavier Araújo,Lucas Henrique Lobato de Rodrigues,Simone Cristina Lima,Ângela Maria de Lourdes Dayrell de Jorge,Alzira de Oliveira Fonseca Sobrinho,Délcio |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Machado,Antônio Thomaz Gonzaga da Matta Reis,Clarice Magalhães Rodrigues dos Abreu,Daisy Maria Xavier Araújo,Lucas Henrique Lobato de Rodrigues,Simone Cristina Lima,Ângela Maria de Lourdes Dayrell de Jorge,Alzira de Oliveira Fonseca Sobrinho,Délcio |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Santos,Alaneir de Fátima dos Machado,Antônio Thomaz Gonzaga da Matta Reis,Clarice Magalhães Rodrigues dos Abreu,Daisy Maria Xavier Araújo,Lucas Henrique Lobato de Rodrigues,Simone Cristina Lima,Ângela Maria de Lourdes Dayrell de Jorge,Alzira de Oliveira Fonseca Sobrinho,Délcio |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Primary Health Care, organization & administration Health Planning Support Cross-Sectional Studies |
topic |
Primary Health Care, organization & administration Health Planning Support Cross-Sectional Studies |
description |
OBJECTIVE To analyze whether the level of institutional and matrix support is associated with better certification of primary healthcare teams.METHODS In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated two kinds of primary healthcare support – 14,489 teams received institutional support and 14,306 teams received matrix support. Logistic regression models were applied. In the institutional support model, the independent variable was “level of support” (as calculated by the sum of supporting activities for both modalities). In the matrix support model, in turn, the independent variables were the supporting activities. The multivariate analysis has considered variables with p < 0.20. The model was adjusted by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.RESULTS The teams had institutional and matrix supporting activities (84.0% and 85.0%), respectively, with 55.0% of them performing between six and eight activities. For the institutional support, we have observed 1.96 and 3.77 chances for teams who had medium and high levels of support to have very good or good certification, respectively. For the matrix support, the chances of their having very good or good certification were 1.79 and 3.29, respectively. Regarding to the association between institutional support activities and the certification, the very good or good certification was positively associated with self-assessment (OR = 1.95), permanent education (OR = 1.43), shared evaluation (OR = 1.40), and supervision and evaluation of indicators (OR = 1.37). In regards to the matrix support, the very good or good certification was positively associated with permanent education (OR = 1.50), interventions in the territory (OR = 1.30), and discussion in the work processes (OR = 1.23).CONCLUSIONS In Brazil, supporting activities are being incorporated in primary healthcare, and there is an association between the level of support, both matrix and institutional, and the certification result. |
publishDate |
2015 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102015000100241 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102015000100241 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049005519 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista de Saúde Pública v.49 2015 reponame:Revista de Saúde Pública instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP) instacron:USP |
instname_str |
Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
instacron_str |
USP |
institution |
USP |
reponame_str |
Revista de Saúde Pública |
collection |
Revista de Saúde Pública |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista de Saúde Pública - Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
revsp@org.usp.br||revsp1@usp.br |
_version_ |
1748936502932406272 |