BackgroundStress levels are evident among health professionals. However, there are few studies on sensory-based self-care aimed at stress management, self-esteem and subjective well-being in this group of professionals.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of a self-care intervention mediated by the senses on the stress levels, self-esteem and well-being of health professionals in a hospital environment.MethodsA total of 93 health professionals participated in an unblinded clinical trial, randomized into four groups: 1) control (no intervention); 2) Monosensory—daily body moisturizing (DBM) with odorless cream; 3) Bisensory—DBM with scented cream; 4) Multisensory—DBM with scented cream associated with audiovisual material. Participants answered specific questionnaires to assess stress, self-esteem and well-being and cortisol samples were collected at baseline, 15 and 30 days following intervention, and at the 30-day follow-up.ResultsSelf-care was characterized as neglected, with most participants reporting inadequate hours of sleep (74%), irregular physical activity (68%), and inadequate nutrition (45%). Compared to the other groups, the Bisensory group had lower stress on all three assessments (p = 0.017; 0.012; 0.036), a life satisfaction 8% higher at follow-up than at baseline (95% CI: 2% to 15%, p = 0.016), a 10% increase in positive affect (95% CI: 2% to 19%, p = 0.011) and a 12% reduction in negative affect (95% CI: 3% to 21% less, p = 0.014) after 30 days. The Multisensory group showed improvement in self-esteem (p = 0.012) and reduced cortisol (p = 0.036) after 30 days of intervention. The control group showed no changes in the variables studied, except for cortisol: an increase at the 15-day evaluation (denoting higher risk for stress, p = 0.009) and a reduction at follow-up (p = 0.028), which was nevertheless within normal levels.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02406755

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pain is one consequence of spinal cord injury, added to micturition and intestinal disorders, changes in sexuality and reproduction, and social and family issues. Understanding pain and its interference with quality of life may help professionals assisting patients to find the most adequate way to control neuropathic pain. Investigators of the International Association for the Study of Pain have evaluated articles from 1975 to 2007 and have observed that the least studied subject was spinal cord pain. This study aimed at evaluating quality of life of patients with neuropathic pain induced by traumatic spinal cord injury. METHODS: This is a quantitative, transversal, exploratory and descriptive research. RESULTS: Seventy percent of patients with neuropathic pain classify it as severe to intense, with scores above five in the visual analog scale. Males, aged between 30 and 39 years, married, with injury by fall, paraplegic, with incomplete injury and injury time between one and five years are those most suffering with pain. Quality of life is better for patients with complete spinal cord injury and who were wounded by firearm. Patients with fecal incontinence have referred worse quality of life and also stated that pain impaired their lives. CONCLUSION: It was observed that patients referring more severe pain have worse quality of life and social relations, which address personal relations, sexual life and support from friends.

Studies evaluating the Quality of Life of individuals with spinal cord injury using different research tools demonstrate that the Quality of Life scores are considered low both in national and international studies. The objective of this review was to characterize the international scientific production about the most used scales to assess Quality of Life in patients with spinal cord injury. We examined articles on Quality of Life of patients with spinal cord injury published over the last 5 years and indexed in the National Library of Medicine (PUBMED). During this period, 28 articles met the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies were conducted in the United States, five articles were published in Australia, and four in Canada. Brazil, France, Holland, India, Japan, Norway, Singapore and Switzerland contributed with one study each. The scientific articles were published in 13 high impact factor journals. Seven different instruments to assess Quality of Life were used in the studies: Satisfaction with Life Scale, Short Form (36) Health Survey, The Brief Version of the WHO Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF), Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale, Life Situation Questionnaire-Revised, Quality of Well-Being Scale and the SF-12® Health Survey. The articles examined underscore the impact of spinal cord injury in the Quality of Life of patients, demonstrating how this condition impairs their lives, mainly socially, but followed by the physical aspects. Despite the studies have different goals they all acknowledge that further studies are necessary in order to determine the Quality of Life of patients with spinal cord injury. Specific instruments should be chosen or developed and validated in order to fulfill this purpose

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bibliometric analyses of scientific publications on pain are scarce in the literature. This study aimed at analyzing the scientific production on pain of a Research Institute. METHOD: This is a retrospective cohort study analyzing articles published in indexed journals, by professionals affiliated to a Research Institute of a non-for-profit general hospital of the city of São Paulo, from 2008 to 2011. Searched databases were Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Scielo and LILACS. RESULTS: During the analyzed period, 47 articles have addressed pain, with mean of 11 articles/year in ascending trend. As to intellectual authorship, these publications have involved 258 authors, with predominance of physicians (77%). Twentyfour studies were carried out in collaboration with other institutions and 24 and, from them, 22 in partnership with Universities. Migraine (25.7%) and headache (14.9%) were most studied sub-themes, and epidemiological designs were the most observed (47%). Most researches (71%) were published by journals with impact factor, being 27 articles (57.4%) published by eight pain specialist journals. Mean impact factor of publications was 2.32. Twenty articles were quoted (42.4%): 102 by Web-of-Science and 135 by SCOPUS. Two articles were quoted twice by Scielo. CONCLUSION: Although studies on pain are still a small part of total production of the analyzed institute, they show potential for growth. Most articles were published by international journals with impact factor and quotations which indicate quality of produced knowledge.

No abstract