Cañete VR, Guilhem D, Brito PK, Carvalho GNMR, Valdés VR, Noda AAL

Language: Spanish
References: 33
Page: 104-113
PDF size: 165.04 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The scientific process is a priority for any public health system because the results, positives or not, contribute to optimize processes and to reduce costs. In critical situations the evidences provided by investigators can determine the permanency, modification or even elimination of certain programs or methods of the daily practice. Consequently those who design and/or to drive investigations need to be responsible and to receive the major attention from the society and the politicians. Science, its advances, its challenges and mainly its results, cannot be locked in laboratories or scientific institutions; on the contrary, they should open up to the society for their timely implementation.

REFERENCES

1. Cook E, Marchaim D, Kaye KS. Building a Successful Infection Prevention Program: Key Components, Processes, and Economics. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 2011;25:1-19.

2. Pan American Health Organization, Health Information and Analysis Project. Health Situation in the Americas: Basic Indicators 2009. Washington, D.C., United States of America, 2009. PAHO/HSD/HA/09.01.

3. Florencia Belli L. La ética como filosofía primera: una fundamentación del cuidado médico desde la ética de la responsabilidad. Cuad Bioet. 2010;21:13-20.

4. Pérez- Soba JJ. Bioética de los derechos. Cuad Bioet. 2008;19:45-55.

5. Gómez-Lobo A. Fundamentaciones de la bioética. Acta Bioeth. 2009;15(1):42-5.

6. León Correa FJ. Fundamentos y principios de bioética clínica, institucional y social. Acta Bioeth. 2009;15(1):70-8.

7. Applied social sciences for public health (ASSPH). Higher degree training for implementation research on tropical diseases. World Health Organization/ Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases. TDR/RCS/07.1. 2007.

8. Woeltje KF, Lautenbach E. Informatics and epidemiology in infection control. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 2011;25:261-70.

9. León FJ. Diez años de Bioética en América Latina: historia reciente y retos actuales. En: Lolas F, editor. Diálogo y cooperación en salud. Diez años de Bioética en la OPS. Santiago de Chile: Programa regional de Bioética OPS/ OMS 2004:145-52.

10. Kliksberg B. América Latina. El caso de la salud pública. En: Sen A, Kliksberg B. Primero la gente. Una mirada desde la ética del desarrollo a los principales problemas del mundo globalizado. Deusto: Planeta; 2008. Pp. 121-86.

11. Mauricio GC. Latinoamérica en los ensayos clínicos internacionales: ¿Dónde está la diferencia? ¿Son los pacientes, los médicos o el sistema? Revista Argentina de Cardiología. 2003;71(1):6-15.

12. Dieterich A. The modern patient- threat or promise? Physicians' perspectives on patients' changing attributes. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67(3):279-85.

13. Cañete R, Guilhem D, Brito K. Consentimiento informado: algunas consideraciones actuales. Acta Bioeth. 2012;18(1):121-7.

14. Culbertson R. Ethics in clinical research. Executives must ensure trial participants' protection and the public's best interest. Healthc Exec. 2013;28(3):60-1.

15. Novaes MRCG, Guilhem D, Lolas F. Dez anos de Experiencia do Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa da Secretaria de Saúde do Distrito Federal, Brasil. Acta Bioeth. 2008;14(2):185-92.

16. Novaes MRCG, Lolas F, Quezada A. Ética y Farmácia. Una Perspectiva Latinoamericana. Monografias de Acta Bioeth. No. 02. Programa de Bioética da OPS/OMS, 2009.

17. Novaes MRCG, Guilhem D, Lolas F. Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Human Beings In Brazil. Arq Med. 2009;23(4):145-50.

18. Guilhem D, Novaes MRCG. Ética e Pesquisa Social em Saúde. In. Fleischer, Schuch P. Ética e Regulamentação na Pesquisa Antropológica. Brasilia: Letras Livres. Ed UnB. 2010; 248 p.

19. Ramcharan P, Cutcliffe JR. Judging the Ethics of Qualitative Research: Considering the 'Ethics as Process' Model. Health and Social Care in the Community. 2001;9(6):358-66.

20. Tacsan MA. Los comités de ética y la investigación en Ciencias Sociales. Ciencias Sociales. 2003;99:85-95.

21. Arnason V. Scientific citizenship in a democratic society. Public Underst Sci. 2013;22(8):927-40.

22. De Renzo EG. Individuals, systems, and professional behaviour. J Clin Ethics. 2006;17(3):275-88.

23. Quintanilla MÁ. Tecnología y cultura. En: Aibar A, Quintanilla MÁ, editores. Cultura tecnológica. Estudios de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Barcelona: Horsori- ICE Universidad de Barcelona; 2003.

24. Miller JD, Scott EC, Okamoto S. Science communication. Public acceptance of evolution. Science. 2006;313(5788):765-6.

25. Cohen JJ, Cruess S, Davidson C. Alliance between society and medicine: the public's stake in medical professionalism. JAMA. 2007;298(6):63.

26. Sithi-amorn C, Somronthong R. Strengthening health research capacity in developing countries: a critical element for achieving health equity. Br Med J. 2000;321:813-5.

27. Aristizábal Franco LE. El porqué de la ética en la investigación científica. Investig andina [en Internet]. 2012 Apr [citado 30 ag. 2013];14(24):369-71. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0124- 81462012000100001&lng=en

28. Batten J. Assessing clinical ethics consultation: processes and outcomes. Med Law. 2013;32(2):141-52.

29. Kottow MH. Conflictos en ética de investigación con seres humanos. Cad Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro; Jun. 2005 [citado 30 Ag. 2013];21(3). Disponible en: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102- 311X2005000300020&lng=en&nrm=iso

30. Atkins D, Kupersmith J. Implementation research: a critical component of realizing the benefits of comparative effectiveness research. Am J Med. 2010;123(12 Suppl 1):e38-45.

31. Strandberg-Larsen M. Measuring integrated care. Dan Med Bull. 2011;58(2):B4245.

32. Wilson KM, Brady TJ, Lesesne C. An organizing framework for translation in public health: the knowledge to action framework. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011;8(2):A46.

33. Guilhem D, Neves da Silva L, Cañete R. Responsibilities in research: the roles of sponsors. Turk Hij Den Biyol Derg. 2010;67(4):189-97.