Autoeficácia, características sociodemográficas e capacitação profissional: um estudo com servidores de uma Universidade Federal

Self-efficacy, the construct developed by Albert Bandura in 1977 and widely studied around the world, means the individual's belief in his own capacity to successfully perform a certain activity. This study aims to determine the degree of association between sociodemographic characteristics and professional training to the levels of Self-Efficacy at Work (SEW) of the Administrative Assistants in a federal university. This is a descriptive research submitted to and approved by the Ethics Committee of UFRN. The method of data analysis, in quantitative nature, was accomplished with the aid of the statistical programs R and Minitab. The instrument used in research was a sociodemographic data questionnaire, variables of professional training and the General Perception of Self-efficacy Scale (GPSES), applied to the sample by 289 Assistants in Administration. Statistical techniques for data analysis were descriptive statistics, cluster analysis, reliability test (Cronbach's alpha), and test of significance (Pearson). Results show a sociodemographic profile of Assistants in Administration of UFRN with well-distributed characteristics, with 48.4% men and 51.6% female; 59.9% of them were aged over 40 years, married (49.3%), color or race white (58%) and Catholics (67.8%); families are composed of up to four people (75.8%) with children (59.4%) of all age groups; the occupation of the mothers of these professionals is mostly housewives (51.6%) with high school education up to parents (72%) and mothers (75.8%). Assistants in Administration have high levels of professional training, most of them composed two groups of servers: the former, recently hired public servants (30.7%) and another with long service (59%), the majority enter young in career and it stays until retirement, 72.4% of these professionals have training above the minimum requirement for the job. The analysis of SEW levels shows medium to high levels for 72% of assistants in administration; low SEWclassified people have shown a high average of 2.7, considered close to the overall mean presented in other studies, which is 2.9. The cluster analysis has allowed us to say that the characteristics of the three groups (Low, Medium and High SEW) are similar and can be found in the three levels of SEW representatives with all the characteristics investigated. The results indicate no association between the sociodemographic variables and professional training to the levels of self-efficacy at work of Assistants in Administration of UFRN, except for the variable color or race. However, due to the small number of people who declared themselves in color or black race (4% of the sample), this result can be interpreted as mere coincidence or the black people addressed in this study have provided a sense of efficacy higher than white and brown ones. The study has corroborated other studies and highlighted the subjectivity of the self-efficacy construct. They are needed more researches, especially with public servants for the continuity and expansion of studies on the subject, making it possible to compare and confirm the results

Parâmetros de concretização judicial do direito fundamental à saúde no fornecimento de medicamentos

In Brazil, social rights have always been considered secondary legal categories, whose implementation could wait for the pending of political decisions. At the end of the Second World War, International Law emphasizes the protection of human beings, raising his dignity as a legal pillar of the legal orders and one of the main foundations of Constitutions. At the post-positivism Constitutionalism, the realization of social rights receives special attention with the assumption of supremacy and normativity of the Constitutions, while the judiciary participates in the realization of democracy, not only as applicator of laws, but also as the guardian of constitutionality of the acts and administrative omissions, creatively contributing to the constitutional achievement, filling gaps and normative state omissions. In this aspect, the supply of medicines, whose costs can not be supported by the individual, keep a close connection with the right to life, health and dignity of the human being, as the subject of numerous lawsuits directed against the Public Administration. Such phenomenon has caused intense debate regarding judicial activism and legitimacy of these decisions, particularly on the need to define what are the limits and possibilities considering the principle of separation of powers and the principle of reserve of the possible; bieng this the problematic developed in this research. Thus, this research aims to verify the legitimacy of judicial decisions that determines to the Public Administration the compulsory providing of medicine to those who can not afford the cost of their treatment, as well as, contribute to the dogmatic constructions of parameters to be observed by judicial interference. Regarding the methodology, this research has an investigative and descriptive caracter and an theoretical approach based on bibliographical data collection (judicial and doutrine decisions) that received qualitative treatment and dialectical approach. As a result, it is known that the judicial decision that determines the supply of medicines to those individuals who can not afford them with their own resources is legitimate and complies with the democratic principle, not violating the principle of separation of powers and the reserve of the possible, since the judicial decison is not stripped with an uniform and reasonable criteria, failing to contain high burden of subjectivism and witch signifies a possible exacerbation of functions by the judiciary, suffering, in this case, of requirement of legal certainty. It is concluded that the Court decision that determines the government the providing of medicine to those who can not afford the cost of treatment should be based on parameters such as: the protection of human dignity and the minimum existencial principle, the inafastable jurisdiction principle; compliance critique of the possible reserve principle; subsidiarity of judicial intervention; proportionality (quantitative and qualitative) in the content of the decision; the questioning about the reasons for non-delivery of the drug through administrative via; and, finally, the attention not to turn the judiciary into a mere production factor of the pharmaceutical industry, contributing to the cartelization of the right to health