RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive antenatal care (ANC) must prioritize competent, evidence-based medical attention to ensure a positive experience and value for its users. Unfortunately, there is scarce evidence of implementing this holistic approach to ANC in low- and middle-income countries, leading to gaps in quality and accountability. This study assessed care competence, women's experiences during the first ANC visit, and the factors associated with these care attributes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The study analyzed cross-sectional baseline data from the maternal eCohort study conducted in Mexico from August to December 2023. The study adapted the Quality Evidence for Health System Transformation (QuEST) network questionnaires to the Mexican context and validated them through expert group and cognitive interviews with women. Pregnant women aged 18 to 49 who had their first ANC visit with a family physician were enrolled in 48 primary clinics of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social across 8 states. Care competence and women's experiences with care were the primary outcomes. The statistical analysis comprised descriptive statistics, multivariable linear and Poisson regressions. A total of 1,390 pregnant women were included in the study. During their first ANC visit, women received only 67.7% of necessary clinical actions on average, and 52% rated their ANC experience as fair or poor. Women with previous pregnancies (adjusted regression coefficient [aCoef.] -3.55; (95% confidence intervals [95% CIs]): -4.88, -2.22, p < 0.001), at risk of depression (aCoef. -3.02; 95% CIs: -5.61, -0.43, p = 0.023), those with warning signs (aCoef. -2.84; 95% CIs: -4.65, -1.03, p = 0.003), common pregnancy discomforts (aCoef. -1.91; 95% CIs: -3.81, -0.02, p = 0.048), or those who had a visit duration of less than 20 minutes (<15 minutes: aCoef. -7.58; 95% CIs: -10.21, -4.95, p < 0.001 and 15 to 19 minutes: aCoef. -2.73; 95% CIs: -4.79, -0.67, p = 0.010) and received ANC in the West and Southeast regions (aCoef. -5.15; 95% CIs: -7.64, -2.66, p < 0.001 and aCoef. -5.33; 95% CIs: -7.85, -2.82, p < 0.001, respectively) had a higher probability of experiencing poorer care competence. Higher care competence (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.004; 95% CIs:1.002, 1.005, p < 0.001) and receiving care in a small clinic (aPR 1.19; 95% CIs: 1.06, 1.34, p = 0.003) compared to a medium-sized clinic were associated with a better first ANC visit experience, while common pregnancy discomforts (aPR 0.94; 95% CIs: 0.89, 0.98, p = 0.005) and shorter visit length (aPR 0.94; 95% CIs: 0.88, 0.99, p = 0.039) were associated with lower women's experience. The primary limitation of the study is that participants' responses may be influenced by social desirability bias, leading them to provide socially acceptable responses. CONCLUSIONS: We found important gaps in adherence to ANC standards and that care competence during the first ANC visit is an important predictor of positive user experience. To inform quality improvement efforts, IMSS should institutionalize the routine monitoring of ANC competencies and ANC user experience. This will help identify poorly performing facilities and providers and address gaps in the provision of evidence-based and women-centered care.
Asunto(s)
Atención Prenatal , Humanos , Femenino , México , Adulto , Embarazo , Estudios Transversales , Adulto Joven , Adolescente , Estudios de Cohortes , Persona de Mediana Edad , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Competencia Clínica , Satisfacción del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of medically unexplained physical symptoms and the characteristics and use of health services in a group of patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms and a group of patients with other illnesses. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, retrospective and multicenter study. We included 1,043 patients over 18 years of age from 30 primary care units of a government health institution, in 11 states of Mexico, attended by 39 family physicians. The prevalence of medically unexplained physical symptoms was determined and both groups with or without symptoms were compared with regard to drug use, laboratory and other studies, leaves of absence, and referrals in the last six months. The group with medically unexplained physical symptoms was diagnosed using the Patient Health Questionnaire and the diagnostic criteria of Reid et al. Emergency or terminal illnesses were excluded. The chi square test was used with a statistical significance of p < 0.05. RESULTS: Medically unexplained physical symptoms was diagnosed in 73 patients (7.0%). The majority were women (91.8%); their predominant symptom was from the gastrointestinal system in 56 (76.7%). This group had a greater use of clinical studies and referrals to other services (mean 1.1 vs. 0.5; p <0.0001 and 0.6 vs. 0.8; p < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of medically unexplained physical symptoms was low, but with a greater impact on some health services. This could represent an overload in medical costs. OBJETIVO: Determinar la prevalencia de Síntomas Físicos Medicamente No Explicables y las características y uso de los servicios de salud entre el grupo de pacientes con Síntomas Físicos Medicamente No Explicables, y el grupo con otras enfermedades. MÉTODOS: Estudio transversal, retroprospectivo y multicéntrico. Se incluyeron a 1,043 pacientes mayores de 18 años, en 30 unidades de atención primaria de una institución gubernamental en salud, en 11 estados de la República Mexicana, atendidos por 39 médicos familiares. Se estimó la prevalencia de Síntomas Físicos Medicamente No Explicables y se compararon los dos grupos con y sin estos síntomas, en cuanto al uso de medicamentos, estudios de laboratorio, de gabinete, incapacidades y referencias en los últimos seis meses. El grupo de Síntomas Físicos Medicamente No Explicables fue diagnosticado por el Patient Health Questionnaire (son los síntomas físicos más comúnmente referidos por estos pacientes en el primer nivel de atención), además de criterios diagnósticos de Reid et al. Se excluyeron urgencias o con enfermedad terminal. Se utilizó prueba Chi cuadrada con p <0.05 para significancia estadística. RESULTADOS: El 7.0% (73) se diagnosticó como Síntomas Físicos Medicamente No Explicables, la mayoría mujeres (91.8%); el síntoma predominante pertenece al sistema gastrointestinal con 76.7% (56). Este grupo demandó mayor uso de estudios de gabinete y referencias a otros servicios (media 1.1 vs. 0.5; p <0.0001 y 0.8 vs 0.6; p <0.01, respectivamente). CONCLUSIONES: La prevalencia de Síntomas Físicos Medicamente No Explicables fue baja, pero con impacto significativo en el uso de algunos servicios de salud. Esto pudiera representar un mayor costo comparado con otro grupo de pacientes.
Asunto(s)
Síntomas sin Explicación Médica , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Distribución de Chi-Cuadrado , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , México/epidemiología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Prevalencia , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Abstract Objective: To determine the prevalence of medically unexplained physical symptoms and the characteristics and use of health services in a group of patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms and a group of patients with other illnesses. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, retrospective and multicenter study. We included 1,043 patients over 18 years of age from 30 primary care units of a government health institution, in 11 states of Mexico, attended by 39 family physicians. The prevalence of medically unexplained physical symptoms was determined and both groups with or without symptoms were compared with regard to drug use, laboratory and other studies, leaves of absence, and referrals in the last six months. The group with medically unexplained physical symptoms was diagnosed using the Patient Health Questionnaire and the diagnostic criteria of Reid et al. Emergency or terminal illnesses were excluded. The chi square test was used with a statistical significance of p < 0.05. Results: Medically unexplained physical symptoms was diagnosed in 73 patients (7.0%). The majority were women (91.8%); their predominant symptom was from the gastrointestinal system in 56 (76.7%). This group had a greater use of clinical studies and referrals to other services (mean 1.1 vs. 0.5; p <0.0001 and 0.6 vs. 0.8; p < 0.01, respectively). Conclusions: The prevalence of medically unexplained physical symptoms was low, but with a greater impact on some health services. This could represent an overload in medical costs....au
Resumen Objetivo: Determinar la prevalencia de Síntomas Físicos Medicamente No Explicables y las características y uso de los servicios de salud entre el grupo de pacientes con Síntomas Físicos Medicamente No Explicables, y el grupo con otras enfermedades. Métodos: Estudio transversal, retroprospectivo y multicéntrico. Se incluyeron a 1,043 pacientes mayores de 18 años, en 30 unidades de atención primaria de una institución gubernamental en salud, en 11 estados de la República Mexicana, atendidos por 39 médicos familiares. Se estimó la prevalencia de Síntomas Físicos Medicamente No Explicables y se compararon los dos grupos con y sin estos síntomas, en cuanto al uso de medicamentos, estudios de laboratorio, de gabinete, incapacidades y referencias en los últimos seis meses. El grupo de Síntomas Físicos Medicamente No Explicables fue diagnosticado por el Patient Health Questionnaire (son los síntomas físicos más comúnmente referidos por estos pacientes en el primer nivel de atención), además de criterios diagnósticos de Reid et al. Se excluyeron urgencias o con enfermedad terminal. Se utilizó prueba Chi cuadrada con p <0.05 para significancia estadística. Resultados: El 7.0% (73) se diagnosticó como Síntomas Físicos Medicamente No Explicables, la mayoría mujeres (91.8%); el síntoma predominante pertenece al sistema gastrointestinal con 76.7% (56). Este grupo demandó mayor uso de estudios de gabinete y referencias a otros servicios (media 1.1 vs. 0.5; p <0.0001 y 0.8 vs 0.6; p <0.01, respectivamente). Conclusiones: La prevalencia de Síntomas Físicos Medicamente No Explicables fue baja, pero con impacto significativo en el uso de algunos servicios de salud. Esto pudiera representar un mayor costo comparado con otro grupo de pacientes...au
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Síntomas sin Explicación Médica , Distribución de Chi-Cuadrado , Estudios Transversales , México/epidemiología , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
This Consenso Nacional de Hipertensión Arterial Sistémica (National Consensus on Systemic Arterial Hypertension) brings together experiences and joint work of 79 specialists who have been in contact with the patient affected by systemic arterial hypertension. All concepts here presented were outlined on the basis of the real world practice of Mexican hypertensive population. The consensus was developed under strict methodological guidelines. The Delphi technique was applied in two rounds for the development of an appropriate statistical analysis of the concepts exposed by all the specialists, who posed key questions, later developed by the panel of experts of the Hospital de Cardiología, and specialists from the Centro Médico Nacional. Several angles of this illness are shown: detection, diagnosis, pathophysiology, classification, treatment and prevention. The evidence analysis was carried out using PRISMA method. More than 600 articles were reviewed, leaving only the most representative in the references. This document concludes with practical and useful recommendations for the three levels of health care of our country.
Este Consenso Nacional de Hipertensión Arterial Sistémica reúne las experiencias y el trabajo conjunto de 79 especialistas que han estado en contacto con el paciente que padece hipertensión arterial sistémica. Todos los conceptos aquí presentados se plantearon con base en la práctica del mundo real de la población hipertensa de México. El consenso se desarrolló bajo lineamientos metodológicos estrictos. La técnica de Delphi se aplicó en dos vueltas para el desarrollo de un análisis estadístico apropiado de los conceptos vertidos por todos los especialistas con preguntas clave que desarrolló el panel de expertos del Hospital de Cardiología y especialistas del Centro Médico Nacional. Se presentan los aspectos de detección, diagnóstico, fisiopatología, clasificación, tratamiento y prevención. El análisis de la evidencia en la literatura se hizo utilizando el método de PRISMA para análisis de evidencia. Se revisaron más de 600 artículos y se dejaron en la bibliografía solo los más representativos. Este documento concluye con recomendaciones prácticas y de utilidad para los tres niveles de atención en salud de nuestro país.