Search

The COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil affected mental health among healthcare workers. To objective of this study was to evaluate the mental health of healthcare workers in in the central-west region of the Brazil, estimating the prevalence of mental health disorders, and investigating associated factors, perceptions of safety, and self-perceptions about mental health in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaire was divided into two parts that included general information and perceptions about the work process and identified symptoms using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21), and multiple linear regression analysis was conducted. A total of 1,522 healthcare workers participated in the survey. Overall prevalence of symptoms was calculated for depression (58.7%), anxiety (59.7%), and stress (61.7%). Physicians had 3.75 times greater risk of depression (1.59–8.85, 95% CI). Independent variables associated with depression symptoms were not feeling safe with the way services were organized (1.12:1.03–1.21, 95% CI) and self-perception of poor mental health (8.06: 4.03–16.10% CI). Working in management was protective, and married professionals had 12% lower risk of exhibiting symptoms of depression (0.79–0.99, 95% CI). Participants with self-perception of poor mental health had 4.63 greater risk for symptoms of anxiety (2.58–8.31, 95% CI). Protective factors were not having sought support for mental health (0.90: 0.82–0.99, 95% CI), having a graduate degree (0.71: 0.54–0.94, 95% CI), and not having been diagnosed with COVID-19 (0.90: 0.83–0.98, 95% CI). Perception of poor mental health was associated with 6.95-fold greater chance of developing stress symptoms. Protective factors from stress were having a degree in dentistry (0.81: 0.68–0.97, 95% CI), residing in Mato Grosso do Sul (0.91: 0.85–0.98, 95% CI), and not having sought mental health support services (0.88: 0.82–0.95, 95% CI). The prevalence of mental health disorders is high among healthcare workers, and is associated with professional category, organization of services provided, and self-perception of poor mental health, reinforcing the need for preventative measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze pediatricians' representations on the nutritional alternatives that are adopted when weaning becomes inevitable. Methods: This is a mixed cross-sectional analytical study with probabilistic sampling. Fifty-seven randomly selected pediatricians were interviewed with the use of a semi-structured script for thematic analysis. The technique of free evocations was used, and the terms were processed using software EVOC 2005. The thematic categories were established on software NVivo10, and their co-occurrence matrix was exported and analyzed in terms of their simple similarity hierarchy on software CHIC. Results: In the pediatricians' representations, whole milk was cited as a foodstuff with high allergenic risk (35.1%) and nutritionally inappropriate, and they did not recommend its use if weaning occurred before 1 year of age. The infant formula, referred by 98.3% of the pediatricians as the best alternative at the moment of weaning, was cited by 38.1% of them owing to its nutritional adequacy. The points quoted as unfavorable to the use of the formula were the price, the possibility of causing allergy and the risk of the inadequate use of such a highly industrialized product. Conclusions: The pediatricians' representations show that they are sensitive to the importance of breast-feeding and at the same time, to the sociocultural difficulties inherent in the practice. Generally speaking, the interviewed pediatricians recommend the use of milk formulas, and not of whole cow's milk, if weaning occurs before the end of the first year of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]