Ana Paula Couto Zoltowski

Processo de reinserção familiar: estudo de casos de adolescentes que viveram em instituição de abrigo

O objetivo desse estudo foi compreender longitudinalmente o processo de reinsercao familiar de tres adolescentes que moravam em abrigos. Visitas domiciliares e Entrevistas de Reinsercao foram utilizadas com os participantes e um membro da familia, durante um periodo que variou de seis a 18 meses. Os resultados indicaram que as familias se encontravam em situacao de vulnerabilidade; nao houve uma preparacao dos jovens e familiares para o retorno; e nao foi disponibilizado apoio apos o desligamento da instituicao. Dois dos adolescentes demonstraram satisfacao com a reinsercao apos alguns meses de desligamento, embora a situacao de pobreza e baixo desempenho escolar fossem percebidos como problemas pelos participantes. No terceiro caso, problemas na conducao da reinsercao fizeram com que a adolescente fosse reabrigada. Discute-se a necessidade de politicas publicas e de programas desenvolvidos por profissionais capacitados, em parceria com os abrigos, que visem a promocao da convivencia familiar.

Qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas em periódicos de psicologia brasileiros

Buscou-se avaliar a qualidade metodologica das revisoes sistematicas (RS) publicadas em periodicos brasileiros de psicologia. Dois autores conduziram uma RS nas bases PePSIC e SciELO, usando as palavras-chave: “revisao” e “sistematica”. Foram identificados e analisados 33 artigos atraves do instrumento Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) . A pontuacao media das revisoes foi 5,39 (em um escore que podia variar de 0 a 11). Houve diferenca de qualidade das RS publicadas no SciELO e no PePSIC, mas nao foi observada diferenca conforme o estrato do periodico, segundo o Qualis CAPES. Alem disso, nao verificou-se incremento na qualidade das publicacoes de 2001 a 2012. Sugere-se adocao de diretrizes por parte dos periodicos de forma a melhorar a qualidade das RS no Brasil.

Construção de uma escala para avaliar a qualidade metodológica de revisões sistemáticas

The aim of this study was to describe the process of creation and validation of methodology to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. From the expansion of the scope and addition of new items to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument evidence of validity and reliability of the new methodology was sought. Firstly, the original scale was translated, adapted, expanded and evaluated by a panel of five experts. Then it was tested by evaluating a random sample of five systematic reviews by three judges with no formal training in the scale. Finally, the consolidated scale was assessed in a new panel by two judges. The panel of experts reached a consensus regarding the validity of the proposed changes. With respect to the scale total and per item score, the average agreement between judges was considered satisfactory in the consolidated scale. From the processes of adaptation and validation performed, the methodology in its final version consisted of 14 items that taken together indicate the methodological quality of systematic reviews from different areas of knowledge.The aim of this study was to describe the process of creation and validation of methodology to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. From the expansion of the scope and addition of new items to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument evidence of validity and reliability of the new methodology was sought. Firstly, the original scale was translated, adapted, expanded and evaluated by a panel of five experts. Then it was tested by evaluating a random sample of five systematic reviews by three judges with no formal training in the scale. Finally, the consolidated scale was assessed in a new panel by two judges. The panel of experts reached a consensus regarding the validity of the proposed changes. With respect to the scale total and per item score, the average agreement between judges was considered satisfactory in the consolidated scale. From the processes of adaptation and validation performed, the methodology in its final version consisted of 14 items that taken together indicate the methodological quality of systematic reviews from different areas of knowledge.