ArticleRevista de saude publica2019
Evaluation of at-risk infant care: comparison between models of primary health care.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in primary health care service experiences and urban-suburban disparities among Shanghai residents: a two-year comparative study.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Measuring and characterizing the quality of child care in Brazilian primary health care: a latent class analysis.Cadernos de saude publica · 2025Article
- Follow-up of children diagnosed with deafness in a neonatal hearing screening program in Manaus.Revista de saude publica · 2023Article
- Strengths and weaknesses in the high-risk baby care network.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyze the health care network for at-risk infants in the western region of the city of São Paulo, with the primary health care as coordinator, and to compare the presence and extension of attributes of primary health care in the services provided, according to the service management model (Family Health Strategy and traditional basic health units).
methodsA survey was conducted with all at-risk infants born in the western region of São Paulo between 2013 and 2014. The children were then actively searched for a later application of the PCATool - child version. The total of 233 children were located in the territory; 113 guardians agreed to participate, and 81 composed the final sample.
resultsRegarding the results of PCATool for overall and essential scores, the units with Family Health Strategy were better evaluated by users, when compared with traditional basic health units, showing a statistically significant difference. However, these scores were low for both management models. Regarding attributes, the Family Health Strategy presented better performance compared with traditional basic health units for most of them, except for coordination of information systems. Of ten assessed attributes, seven reached values ≥6.6 for Family Health Strategy and two for the traditional basic health unit.
conclusionsRegardless of the type of management model, low overall and essential scores were found, indicating that guardians of at-risk infants rated some attributes as unsatisfactory, with emphasis on accessibility, integrality and family guidance. Such a performance may have negative consequences for the quality and integrality of these infants' health care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.