RESUMO
El objetivo del presente estudio fue proponer un instrumento para medir el clima laboral en la Fuerza Aérea Colombiana. Para ello se diseñó el cuestionario de clima laboral, se evaluaron las características psicométricas y se estableció su utilidad como instrumento de medida. El estudio fue de tipo instrumental, con la participación de 3272 de sus funcionarios, diferenciados por grupos de rango, dependencia, jefatura y bases en el ámbito nacional. Se realizó el análisis de ítems para identificar la potencia discriminativa de cada uno de los ítems, para diferenciar entre quiénes tienen alta percepción de un buen clima laboral y los que no la tienen; la homogeneidad y la consistencia interna. Todas las escalas obtuvieron un alpha mayor a 0,72 y del análisis de cada ítem, se propone una escala de 58 elementos. Se concluye que el cuestionario de clima laboral tiene buena capacidad discriminativa y de homogeneidad.
The purpose of the study was to propose an instrument in order to measure the work environment in the Colombian Air Forces. In order to do this, a questionnaire of work environment was designed; then the psychometric characteristics were evaluated and the utility as an instrument of measurement was established. This study was instrumental and 3272 military servants took part in it and were classified according to their rank, branch where they work, if they were the chief of a division and location in the national territory. In order to identify the discriminative potential of each one of the items to differentiate among the military servants who have a high perception of a good work environment and those who do not have it, each item was analyzed. Homogeneity and inner consistency were also studied. All the scales got an alpha bigger than 0,72 and according to each item, a scale of 58 items is proposed. It was concluded that the questionnaire of work environment has a good homogeneity and discriminative capacity.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease represents a serious public health problem in Jalisco, Mexico. It is reported among the 10 leading causes of death, with an annual mortality rate of 12 deaths per 100,000 population. The state population is 6.3 million, and more than half do not have medical insurance. In this study, we report the population's access to renal replacement therapy (RRT). METHODS: Patients > or =15 years of age, who started RRT between January 1998 and December 2000 at social security or health secretariat medical facilities, were included. Nine facilities participated in the study. At the start of treatment, the patient's facility, age, gender, cause of renal failure, and initial treatment modality were registered. RESULTS: Within the study period, 2456 started RRT, 1767 (72%) at social security facilities and 687 (28%) at health secretariat facilities, for an annual incidence rate of 195 per million population (pmp). The main cause of renal failure was diabetes mellitus (51% of patients). There were significant differences between the 2 populations. Patients with social security were older (53.1 +/- 17 vs. 45.1 +/- 20 years, P= 0.001) and had more diabetes (54% vs. 42%, P= 0.001) than those without social security. They had higher acceptance (327 pmp vs. 99 pmp, P= 0.001) and prevalence rates (939 pmp vs. 166 pmp, P= 0.001) than patients without medical insurance. Dialysis use was similar in both populations. Eighty-five percent of patients were on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and 15% on hemodialysis. Kidney transplant rate was higher among insured patients (72 pmp vs. 7.5 pmp, P= 0.001). The number of dialysis programs and nephrologists that offered renal care also differed. There were 10 dialysis programs in social security and 3 in health secretariat facilities. Fourteen nephrologists looked after the insured population, whereas 5 cared for the uninsured (7.7 pmp vs. 2.1 pmp, P= 0.001). The latter had access to 8 hemodialysis stations compared with 34 for the insured population (3.4 pmp vs. 18.8 pmp, P= 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Access to RRT is unequal in our state. Although it is universal for the insured population, it is severely restricted for the poor. Social and economical factors, as well as the limited number of understaffed, centralized dialysis facilities, could explain these differences.