Com objetivo de identificar os fatores que influenciam a participação do homem/pai no acompanhamento prénatalem uma Unidade de Saúde da Família de Recife – PE, foi realizado um estudo transversal do tipo descritivo, exploratório,de abordagem quantitativa. A amostra intencional foi constituída por 13 homens/pais companheiros de gestantes, querealizavam o pré-natal em uma unidade de saúde da família. Este estudo mostra que 53,8% (n =7) dos homens entrevistadosnão consideraram a gravidez oportuna e referem o trabalho como motivo para não participar da consulta pré-natal, 61,5%(n =8) consideraram como maior contribuição no processo gestacional o apoio emocional e financeiro e 84,6% (n =11) dospais não participam dos grupos de gestantes na unidade de saúde em estudo. Este estudo evidencia que há baixoenvolvimento paterno no período pré-natal com necessidade dos profissionais de saúde atuarem no processo educacionalcom vistas à aproximação da participação do homem/pai na gestação.

IntroductionBurnout is characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment, resulting from the inability to cope with chronic job stress. The literature suggests that staffs working in adult oncology are at risk of burnout. At the same time, research found that pediatric staff experiences a different set of stressors when compared with colleagues working in adult oncology. However, no studies were identified which directly compared prevalence and sources of Burn-out on pediatric and adult oncology staff.ObjectivesTo compare the differences on prevalence and sources of burnout between pediatric and adult oncology multidisciplinary teams.MethodsPediatric and adult oncology professionals, including medical and nursing from a Portuguese oncology center completed the Portuguese version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Data was analyzed using SPSS.ResultsSince the study is currently ongoing the authors will only be able to provide final results and conclusions by the time of submission of our work presentation, in March 2016. However, according to the literature available, we are expecting to found symptoms of Burnout in the superior limit of normality, with differences in the major sources of stress between adult and pediatric professionals.ConclusionThe differences in the challenges experienced by adult and pediatric teams highlight the importance of adequate prevention strategies to specific needs of each unit. Further investigation of stress across a wider range of professional disciplines is required in order to explore this gap.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

IntroductionBurnout is a condition characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment, resulting from the inability to cope with chronic job stress. Healthcare providers at pediatric oncology units, who care for children with life-threatening illnesses, are exposure to high levels of stress, which increases the risk for developing burnout, with consequences in their personal health and quality of patient care.ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence and sources of burnout on a multidisciplinary team of a pediatric oncology unit.MethodsParticipants were a convenience sample of 16 pediatric oncology professionals, including medical, nursing, and related health staff from a Portuguese pediatric oncology center. Participants completed the Portuguese version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory.ResultsAll three subscales that compose this Inventory were found to have burnout below normal levels (cut-off ≥ 50 points). However, personal and work-related subscales showed mean values in the superior limit of normality (48 ± 14, 18 points and 49, 48 ± 12, 23 points, respectively). Nevertheless, when analyzed the patient-related subscale, we found low levels of burnout in the majority of responders. These findings are similar to the existing literature, which suggests that patient care and interactions with children are the least stressful aspect of working in this specialty.ConclusionDespite the high levels of stress exposure in pediatric oncology units, results suggest that the majority of professionals are not actually in burnout. However, the obtained values advice for the need of prevention and workplace approaches to staff's well-being and stress reduction, in order to avoid burnout development.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Background Carotid stenosis is responsible for a considerable amount of strokes and related deaths. Carotid angioplasty stenting (CAS), endarterectomy (CEA) and best medical treatment (BMT) are important in preventing major cardiovascular (CV) events. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, with randomized controlled trials (RCT), to compare CAS with CEA and BMT regarding the short and long-term major periprocedural and follow-up CV events (stroke, myocardial infarction, and death) in symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis. We searched for RCT published from 2008 to 2021 in databases such as Pubmed/MEDLINE, B-On, Embase, Clinical Trials from U.S. National Library of Medicine and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, between July of 2018 and January of 2019, and in October of 2021. Results Nine RCT were included, with a total of 9162 participants for CAS versus (vs) CEA, and 513 participants for CAS vs TMO. Compared with CEA, CAS is associated with periprocedural stroke and death in symptomatic patients (HR=1.65, 95% CI: 1.29–2.11, p=0.05, I2=62%), due to higher stroke events than deaths. That association does not occur in asymptomatic patients in which CAS is not associated with periprocedural stroke or death (CAS=8.55%, CEA=7.05%, p=0.09). During follow-up there were no significant differences between CAS and CEA in symptomatic patients regarding stroke (HR=1.51, 95% CI: 1.23–1.84, p=0.57, I2=0%) and death (HR=1.10, 95% CI: 0.93–1.30, p=0.69, I2=0%). Periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) incidence is higher in CEA (CAS=1.1%; CEA=2.3%; p=0.03), without influence of symptomatic status. CAS is not inferior to CEA, in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with high surgery risk, as for periprocedural and one year CV major events (CAS=12.2%, CEA=20.1%, absolute difference = −7.9, 95% CI: −16.4–0.7, p=0.004). BMT had no significant findings vs CAS in asymptomatic patients (HR=3.5, 95% CI: 0.42–29.11, p=0.246). Conclusion CAS is not inferior to CEA as for the periprocedural and one-year major CV events in patients with normal surgery risk. However, there is a higher risk of periprocedural stroke in CAS for symptomatic patients, and of periprocedural MI in CEA with no influence of symptomatic status. CAS seams to prevent middle and long-term ipsilateral stroke in symptomatic patients. BMT has yet to prove not to be inferior to CAS in asymptomatic patients. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.