Diseño y análisis comparativo de un inventario de indicadores de mortalidad evitable adaptado a las condiciones sanitarias de Colombia

Objetivos. Elaborar un inventario de indicadores de mortalidad evitable (INIME) que permita analizar las fallas en el control de los riesgos de mortalidad predominantes en Colombia y comparar los resultados de su aplicación con los obtenidos mediante dos enfoques ampliamente utilizados. Métodos. Se revisaron los registros oficiales de mortalidad de Colombia de 1985 a 2001; las causas básicas de muerte se clasificaron según la CIE-9. Se seleccionaron los indicadores de mortalidad evitable (ME) mediante un algoritmo que combinó las listas de Holland y de Taucher, la definición de Rutstein y colaboradores y el principio de Uemura. Se compararon las proporciones de muertes evitables resultantes de aplicar el INIME y las dos listas de ME a una base de datos con los registros oficiales de defunciones de Colombia de 1993 a 1996. Resultados. De las 680 617 defunciones registradas en el período de estudio, se clasificaron como evitables 18,2% según la lista de Holland y 51,3% según la lista de Taucher. La ME según el INIME ascendió a 76,7%. Este patrón se mantuvo relativamente estable entre 1993 y 1996. Las diferencias observadas en la proporción de muertes evitables según el INIME y las dos listas de ME se relacionaron con el perfil epidemiológico local y el enfoque conceptual de cada lista. Conclusiones. Las diferencias entre el INIME y las listas de ME de Holland y de Taucher muestran las consecuencias de usar una u otra clasificación en el contexto colombiano. El INIME puede constituir un recurso valioso para fundamentar y evaluar políticas sanitarias, pero debe ajustarse a la situación específica en que se aplique.

How do primary health care teams learn to integrate intimate partner violence (IPV) management? A realist evaluation protocol

Background: Despite the existence of ample literature dealing, on the one hand, with the integration of innovations within health systems and team learning, and, on the other hand, with different aspects of the detection and management of intimate partner violence (IPV) within healthcare facilities, research that explores how health innovations that go beyond biomedical issues—such as IPV management—get integrated into health systems, and that focuses on healthcare teams’ learning processes is, to the best of our knowledge, very scarce if not absent. This realist evaluation protocol aims to ascertain: why, how, and under what circumstances primary healthcare teams engage (if at all) in a learning process to integrate IPV management in their practices; and why, how, and under what circumstances team learning processes lead to the development of organizational culture and values regarding IPV management, and the delivery of IPV management services. Methods: This study will be conducted in Spain using a multiple-case study design. Data will be collected from selected cases (primary healthcare teams) through different methods: individual and group interviews, routinely collected statistical data, documentary review, and observation. Cases will be purposively selected in order to enable testing the initial middle-range theory (MRT). After in-depth exploration of a limited number of cases, additional cases will be chosen for their ability to contribute to refining the emerging MRT to explain how primary healthcare learn to integrate intimate partner violence management. Discussion: Evaluations of health sector responses to IPV are scarce, and even fewer focus on why, how, and when the healthcare services integrate IPV management. There is a consensus that healthcare professionals and healthcare teams play a key role in this integration, and that training is important in order to realize changes. However, little is known about team learning of IPV management, both in terms of how to trigger such learning and how team learning is connected with changes in organizational culture and values, and in service delivery. This realist evaluation protocol aims to contribute to this knowledge by conducting this project in a country, Spain, where great endeavours have been made towards the integration of IPV management within the health system.

Mechanisms that Trigger a Good Health-Care Response to Intimate Partner Violence in Spain. Combining Realist Evaluation and Qualitative Comparative Analysis Approaches

Background. Health care professionals, especially those working in primary health-care services, can play a key role in preventing and responding to intimate partner violence. However, there are huge variations in the way health care professionals and primary health care teams respond to intimate partner violence. In this study we tested a previously developed programme theory on 15 primary health care center teams located in four different Spanish regions: Murcia, C Valenciana, Castilla-León and Cantabria. The aim was to identify the key combinations of contextual factors and mechanisms that trigger a good primary health care center team response to intimate partner violence. Methods. A multiple case-study design was used. Qualitative and quantitative information was collected from each of the 15 centers (cases). In order to handle the large amount of information without losing familiarity with each case, qualitative comparative analysis was undertaken. Conditions (context and mechanisms) and outcomes, were identified and assessed for each of the 15 cases, and solution formulae were calculated using qualitative comparative analysis software. Results. The emerging programme theory highlighted the importance of the combination of each team’s self-efficacy, perceived preparation and women-centredness in generating a good team response to intimate partner violence. The use of the protocol and accumulated experience in primary health care were the most relevant contextual/intervention conditions to trigger a good response. However in order to achieve this, they must be combined with other conditions, such as an enabling team climate, having a champion social worker and having staff with training in intimate partner violence. Conclusions. Interventions to improve primary health care teams’ response to intimate partner violence should focus on strengthening team’s self-efficacy, perceived preparation and the implementation of a woman-centred approach. The use of the protocol combined with a large working experience in primary health care, and other factors such as training, a good team climate, and having a champion social worker on the team, also played a key role. Measures to sustain such interventions and promote these contextual factors should be encouraged.