Search

Public health systems have the great challenge of meeting the population's health needs with limited financial resources. Thus, to incorporate new health technologies (HT) in their coverage plans, they use tools that allow them to inform their decisions based on scientific evidence, such as health technology assessments (HTAs). These are developed in a multidisciplinary way, under an explicit methodology, which estimates the value of a technology. With this information, the decision-maker can support his decision, anticipate the impact of its implementation, plan actions, and set goals, all of which promote efficient use of resources, transparency of processes, and facilitate accountability. The Peruvian Social Security healthcare system (EsSalud) implemented, through the Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación (IETSI), a decisionmaking process based on HTAs to decide on the coverage of new HT. From the creation of the IETSI in December 2014 to December 2021, 407 ETS have been carried out. Of these, 161 were approved, thus extending new treatments for clinical conditions. These incorporations have not translated into a sharp increase in the annual expending of medicines to put EsSalud's financial sustainability at risk, although it has increased patient access to innovative technologies. The average investment per patient treated with these technologies was reduced from S/ 133,270 in 2011 to S/ 47,779 in 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista del Cuerpo Médico del Hospital Nacional Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo is the property of Cuerpo Medico del Hospital Nacional Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of chlorine dioxide solution and chlorine derivatives used in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19., Methods: This review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and follows the guidelines provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A librarian developed and executed the search strategy; it was further reviewed by two of the authors and complemented by manual search. Randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and case reports were included; in vitro or animal studies were excluded. Abstract and full-text screening according to pre-defined eligibility criteria were performed by two reviewers independently using web application Rayyan QCRI. Disagreements on study selection were resolved by a third reviewer. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020200641)., Results: Neither published nor pre-print studies evaluating the use of chlorine dioxide or derivatives on SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified. The only finding was an unpublished observational study registry which has no results released yet., Conclusions: To date, there are no scientific evidence to uphold the use of chlorine dioxide or derivatives as preventive or therapeutic agents against COVID-19.

In order to rate the medical residency training program from the perceptions of residents, a structured survey, based on international literature, was applied to 228 participants. 48.2% of residents rated their training as “good,” 36.4% as “fair” and 15.4% as “poor”. Most of the residents had low supervision while on call, were overworked and did not have rest after being on call. Having a good annual curriculum (OR: 8.5; 95% CI: 4.1 to 7.4) and university promotion of research (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1 to 5.2) were independent factors associated with higher ratings of training. In conclusion, the rating of residents about their training is mostly good, but this percentage does not exceed 50%. Training authorities could use these results to propose improvements in training programs for medical residents in Peru.