Objective: The goal of this study was to systematically review risk factors for workplace bullying. Methods: The search was carried out in two databases. Studies with estimates of risk factors for workplace bullying were included in the review. We assessed the quality of the selected studies using an adapted version of the Downs and Black checklist. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were used for reporting papers. Results: Fifty-one papers were included, and 70.6% were from European countries. Women were reported to be at higher risk of being bullied in most studies (odds ratio (OR) from 1.17 to 2.77). Authoritarian and laissez-faire leadership styles were positively associated with bullying. Several psychosocial factors, such as stress (OR from 1.37 to 4.96), and occupational risks related to work organization, such as flexible work methods, role conflict, role ambiguity, monotonous or rotating tasks, high demands, pressure of work, and unclarity of duties were strongly associated with bullying. Discussion: The findings highlight the central role of organizational factors in bullying. Policies to prevent bullying must address the culture of organizations, facing the challenge of developing a new management and leadership framework.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the sexual behavior of freshmen undergraduate students according to demographic, economic, psychosocial and behavioral characteristics, and evaluate the prevalence of risky sexual behavior and its associated factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of the census type with undergraduate students over 18 years old of 80 undergraduate courses of the Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel), in Rio Grande do Sul (RS), who entered in the first semester of 2017 and remained enrolled in the second semester. Undergraduate students who reported having had sex were evaluated. We considered as risky sexual behavior having more than one sexual partner within the last three months and not having used condoms in the last sexual intercourse. RESULTS: The prevalence of risky sexual behavior was 9% (95%CI 7.6–10.5). Men presented more risky behavior than women, with a prevalence of 10.8% and 7.5%, respectively. Of the undergraduate students, 45% did not use condoms in the last sexual intercourse, and 24% had two partners or more within three months before the survey. Smartphone applications for sexual purposes were used by 23% of students within three months before the survey. Risky sexual behavior was associated with gender, age at first sexual intercourse, frequency of alcohol consumption, consumption of psychoactive substances before the last sexual intercourse and use of smartphone applications for sexual purposes. CONCLUSION: Although undergraduate students are expected to be an informed population, the prevalence of risky sexual behavior was important, indicating the need to expand public investment in sexual education and awareness actions.

Introduction Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine ( Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases ( Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology ( Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. Results Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. Conclusion So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

No abstract

No abstract