目的:评估干预措施的有效性,以在卫生区域的所有基本卫生区(ZBS)中持续纳入团体和社区活动。
方法:在2019年1月和2月期间,研究小组的两名成员前往每个ZBS采访了先前通过电子邮件收到临时初始评估问卷(QAI)的医疗和护理协调员。
方法:范围是健康区域的11ZBS。
方法:研究人群是ZBS和由医疗和护理协调员代表的各自团队。
方法:促进社区卫生委员会,开展培训行动,记录临床病史中的活动,并纳入管理目标。
方法:在干预的第一年后进行定量和定性分析。
结果:在预评估中:6个初级保健团队(EAP)报告有小组活动,4人参加了地方行动项目,4有一个专业的社区活动推荐人,3人参加了弱势群体的项目,4人表示有关于社区卫生的具体会议。干预后:11个EAP进行了小组活动,8有参考专业人士,6人参加了地方行动项目,4次与弱势群体合作开展项目,5次举行社区健康会议。
结论:干预措施在实施第一年后被证明是有效的,由于所有EAP都开展了小组活动,并与该地区的地方议会合作;大多数都有社区护理方面的领先专业人员,在较小程度上,对地方行动项目和弱势群体的参与增加。
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to incorporate group and community activities on a sustained basis in all the Basic Health Zones (ZBS) of a health area.
METHODS: During January and February 2019, two members of the research team traveled to each ZBS to interview the medical and nursing coordinators who had previously received an ad hoc initial assessment questionnaire (QAI) by email.
METHODS: The scope is the 11 ZBS of a health area.
METHODS: The study population is the ZBS and the respective teams represented by the medical and nursing coordinations.
METHODS: Promote a community health commission, carry out training actions, record activities in clinical history and incorporate management objectives.
METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative analysis was carried out pre and post after the first year of intervention.
RESULTS: In the pre-evaluation: 6 primary care teams (EAP) reported having group activities, 4 were participating in local action projects, 4 had a professional referent for community activities, 3 participated in projects with populations in vulnerable situations and 4 stated have specific meetings on community health. After the intervention: 11 EAPs had group activities, 8 had a reference professional, 6 were participating in local action projects, 4 collaborated in projects with vulnerable populations and 5 held meetings on community health.
CONCLUSIONS: The intervention proved effective after its first year of implementation, since all the EAPs carried out group activities and collaborated with the local councils in the area; the majority had leading professionals in community care and, to a lesser extent, participation in local action projects and in vulnerable populations increased.