Search

BackgroundIntimate partner violence is a global health burden that disproportionately affects women and their health outcomes. Women in Brazil are also affected by interpersonal violence. We aimed to estimate the lifetime prevalence of three forms of interpersonal violence against women (IPVAW) and to identify sociodemographic factors associated with IPVAW in one urban Brazilian city.MethodsUsing a cross-sectional design, we interviewed women aged ≥18 years in the urban Brazilian city, Maringá, who currently have or have had an intimate partner. The 13-item WHO Violence Against Women instrument was used to ask participants about their experiences with intimate partner violence, categorized into psychological, physical and sexual violence. We estimated associations between IPVAW and sociodemographic characteristics using generalized linear models.Results and conclusionsOf the 419 women who were enrolled and met inclusion criteria, lifetime prevalence of IPVAW was 56%. Psychological violence was more prevalent (52%) than physical (21%) or sexual violence (13%). Twenty-eight women (6.4%) experienced all three forms of IPVAW. Women were more likely to experience violence if they were employed, did not live with their partner or had 4 or more children. Educational level, household income, age and race were not significantly associated factors. Our findings highlight a high prevalence of IPVAW in a community in southern Brazil.

Background:Quantity, quality, and impact of scientific publications are used to assess national, institutional, and individual levels of research productivity. While the importance of quality research is stressed among the medical research community, minimal research has been conducted on analyzing which factors affect research productivity. Current literature assesses the quality of research institutions rather than that of individual researchers; there is also no research on the difference between high-impact researchers and other researchers. This study, conducted in 2015, sought to investigate the underlying reason for high-throughput authors' success by understanding their similar habits and motivations leading to high productivity. Methods:The authors conducted a qualitative study via interviews of high-throughput researchers from around the world. Semi-structured interview scripts guided the interviews in accordance to the grounded theory method for qualitative studies. Broad themes from preliminary interviews were identified and explored in subsequent interviews. Results:Qualitative analysis of participant interviews identified eight major themes: “Writing habits,” “Writing strategy,” “Previous training and writing experience,” “Major driver,” “Balancing volume and impact of publications,” “Ideal and non-ideal conditions,” “Timelines,” and “Role of networking on high-throughput productivity.” These themes are not exclusive nor required qualities of high-throughput researchers but highlight similarities and broadly unifying characteristics of these researchers. Conclusion:This study identified the common qualities and attitudes of high-throughput researchers. We found common factors in most individuals that can be considered markers of high productivity. Contexto: A quantidade, a qualidade e o impacto das publicações científicas são usados ​​para avaliar os níveis nacionais, institucionais e individuais da produtividade da pesquisa. Embora a importância da pesquisa em qualidade seja enfatizada na comunidade de pesquisa médica, pesquisas mínimas têm sido conduzidas na análise de quais fatores afetam a produtividade da pesquisa. A literatura atual avalia a qualidade das instituições de pesquisa e não a dos pesquisadores individuais; Também não há pesquisas sobre a diferença entre pesquisadores de alto impacto e outros pesquisadores. Este estudo, realizado em 2015, procurou investigar a razão subjacente para o sucesso dos autores de alta produtividade, ao compreender seus hábitos e motivações similares, levando a uma alta produtividade. Métodos: Os autores realizaram um estudo qualitativo por meio de entrevistas com pesquisadores de alta produtividade de todo o mundo. Os roteiros de entrevista semiestruturados orientaram as entrevistas de acordo com o método da teoria fundamentada para estudos qualitativos. Temas amplos de entrevistas preliminares foram identificados e explorados em entrevistas subseqüentes. Resultados: A análise qualitativa das entrevistas dos participantes identificou oito temas principais: “Hábitos de escrita”, “Estratégia de redação”, “Experiência anterior em treinamento e redação”, “Piloto principal”, “Balanceamento de volume e impacto das publicações”, “Ideal e não ideal condições ”,“ Timelines ”e“ Papel da rede na produtividade de alto rendimento ”. Esses temas não são exclusivos nem exigem qualidades de pesquisadores de alta produtividade, mas destacam semelhanças e características amplamente unificadoras desses pesquisadores. Conclusão: Este estudo identificou as qualidades e atitudes comuns dos pesquisadores de alto rendimento. Encontramos fatores comuns na maioria dos indivíduos que podem ser considerados marcadores de alta produtividade.

Objective: The objective of this study was to perform a qualitative study to identify commonalities and differences in reasoning processes between these groups.Methods: A phenomenological qualitative study based on transcriptions of physicians and statisticians conceptualizing clinical cases and clinical research questions. Interviews were carried out with nine statisticians and sixteen physicians contacted virtually. The main outcome measures were emerging themes that were common to both expert groups.Results: Both groups used conceptual models -although different models- during their reasoning processes, but their concepts were not common between the groups complicating the exchange of information. Both groups were unaware that their specialty language was frequently inaccessible to non-specialists or specialists from other fields, which leads to communication difficulties. These difficulties were broadly classified into translational problems of field-specific terms and concepts. Field-specific terms would sometimes lead to misinterpretations while the translation of field-specific concepts often leads to content loss.Conclusions: The use of field-specific terms and concepts can lead to confusion and misinterpretation. Teams would benefit from taxonomies containing terms that can be understood by specialists from both disciplines