Tratamento da retinopatia diabética: percepções de pacientes em Rio Claro (SP) - Brasil

PURPOSE: To collect information and opinions from a group of diabetic patients regarding diabetic retinopathy and its treatment, in order to get reliable information that can help to improve programs and actions to control and prevent this ocular disease. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed. The sample was from 980 diabetic patients seen in a diabetic association. A previous questionnaire was made with general questions about the main subject. Thereafter, an appropriate questionnaire was prepared. RESULTS: The sample showed that among 299 patients with age ranging from 16 to 83 years, with a mean of 57 years, mainly female (67.91%) did not know how severe their disease was (30.8%), or believed that it was not a serious problem (19.7%). The laser technique to solve diabetic retinopathy was known by 60.2% of the patients. It was reported as the only treatment available by 24.1%. Among the reasons for no treatment 59.8% reported that they did not think it was necessary and 29.7% could not afford it. CONCLUSIONS: Patients showed lack of knowledge about how serious is diabetic retinopathy, the possibility of using laser technique for it and the severity of the disease. Some patients believed in the efficacy of the treatment and some patients did not, but all of them reported that they were afraid of submitting to it.

[why Does The Prevalence Of Cytopathological Results Of Cervical Cancer Screening Can Vary Significantly Between Two Regions Of Brazil?].

To analyze the prevalence of cervical cytopathological results for the screening of cervical cancer with regard to women's age and time since the last examination in Maceió and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, among those assisted by the Brazilian Unified Health System. Cervical cytopathological results available in the Information System of Cervical Cancer Screening for the year 2011 were analyzed, corresponding to 206,550 for Rio de Janeiro and 45,243 for Maceió. In Rio de Janeiro, examination at one and two year intervals predominated, while in Maceió examination at one and three year intervals had a higher predominance. Women who underwent cervical smear screening in Maceió were older than those in Rio de Janeiro. The prevalence of invasive squamous cell carcinoma was similar for the two cities, but all the other results presented a higher prevalence in Rio de Janeiro: ASCUS (PR=5.32; 95%CI 4.66-6.07); ASCH (PR=4.27; 95%CI 3.15-5.78); atypical glandular cells (PR=10.02; 95%CI 5.66-17.76); low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (PR=6.10; 95%CI 5.27-7.07); high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (PR=8.90; 95%CI 6.50-12.18) and adenocarcinoma (PR=3.00; 95%CI 1.21-7.44). The rate of unsatisfactory cervical samples was two times higher in Maceió and that of rejected samples for analysis was five times higher in Maceió when compared to Rio de Janeiro. The prevalence rates of altered cervical cytopathological results was significantly higher in Rio de Janeiro than in Maceió. There is no objective information that may justify this difference. One hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the diagnostic performance of the cervical cancer screening, which could be related to the quality of the Pap smear. Thus, these findings suggest that it would be necessary to perform this evaluation at national level, with emphasis on the performance of cervical cancer screening in order to improve the effectiveness of cervical cancer control.