Efetividade da educação no trabalho em um programa de saúde: uma estratégia para a formação profissional e a aprendizagem ao longo da vida

Rodrigues, Maria da Graça Munareto; Drachler, Maria de Lourdes; Munareto, Jussara; Leite, José Carlos de Carvalho

doi:10.1590/S0104-40362018002601550

Maria da Graça Munareto Rodrigues

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.

Maria de Lourdes Drachler

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.

Jussara Munareto

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.

José Carlos de Carvalho Leite

Universidade La Salle. Canoas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.

Informações dos autores

Maria da Graça Munareto Rodrigues: Mestre em Saúde Coletiva pela Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Gerente da Equipe de Serviços Terceirizados da UFRGS. Contato: munareto@progesp.ufrgs.br

Maria de Lourdes Drachler: Doutora em Epidemiologia pela London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Universidade de Londres. Professora do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Médica e pesquisadora da Secretaria Estadual da Saúde (SESRS), Governo do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Contato: malu.drachler@gmail.com

Jussara Munareto: Bacharel em medicina pela Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Médica da Cooperativa do Trabalho Médico (Unimed). Contato: jussaramunareto@gmail.com

José Carlos de Carvalho Leite: Doutor em Psicologia pelo King’s College of London, Universidade de Londres. Professor do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde e Desenvolvimento Humano da Universidade La Salle (Unilasalle). Contato: jcdc.leite@gmail.com

	Students n = 286	Preceptors and mentors n = 159
Questionnaire items	%	%
PET purpose
1. PET purpose is to improve care for individuals.	95.2	94.3
2. PET purpose is to enable participants to feel confident in their own professional practice.	89.5	92.5
3. I am clear about what I wanted to get out of my participation in the PET program.^a	76.2	89.9
Implementation process
4. I felt safe sharing PET issues regarding health care practices.^b	81.5	80.5
5. The operating rules of my PET group were clear and well established.^c	59.8	81.8
6. I believe that any confidences I share were respected.	86.7	81.1
7. There was mutual trust among the members of my PET group.	73.8	80.5
8. I felt confident about bringing issues on teaching-learning to my PET group.^d	86.7	76.8
PET impact
9. Being part of a PET group helped me to develop my self-awareness.^e	88.2	76.1
10. I got new ideas through PET group participation.	92.0	81.7
11. Participating in my PET group raised my awareness regarding skills I had to improve.	87.7	81.1
12. My PET group had a positive impact on the quality of my work in a multidisciplinary team.^f	88.1	73.6
13. Participating in my PET group helped me cope with stress at work.	58.4	61.6
14. The experience in my PET group helped me feel more confident about dealing with issues of my health-related work.^g	89.5	70.4

	Students		Preceptors Mentors		Total

	n	(%)	n	(%)	n	(%)
Gender
Female	239	(83.6)	129	(81.3)	368	(82.7)
Male	47	(16.4)	30	(18.7)	77	(17.3)
Age at entry
1^st quartile	83	(29.0)	41	(25.8)	124	(27.9)
Median	132	(46.2)	78	(49.1)	210	(47.2)
2^nd quartile	71	(24.8)	40	(25.2)	111	(24.9)
Undergraduate area*
Biomedical	155	(54.2)	66	(41.8)	222	(49.9)
Management and care	84	(29.4)	66	(41.8)	151	(33.9)
Psychosocial	47	(16.4)	26	(16.4)	72	(16.2)
Focus of PET project
Primary care	129	(45.1)	78	(49.1)	207	(46.5)
Care Management, Surveillance, Organization	157	(54.9)	81	(50.9)	238	(53.5)
Year of Notice and PET-Health-UFRGS program
Health in primary care - 2008 Mental health - 2010	66	(23.0)	40	(25.1)	106	(23.8)
Pro-Health & PET-Health - 2011	128	(44.8)	70	(44.0)	198	(44.5)
Health surveillance - 2012 Health care networks - 2013	92	(33.1)	49	(30.9)	141	(31.6)
Total	286		159		445

Position in PET n = 445	Score of perception of PET effectiveness

	Purpose		Process		Impact

	Lowest value	Highest value	Lowest value	Highest value	Lowest value	Highest value
Student	0.00	4.00	0.00	4.00	0.50	4.00
Preceptor	1.33	4.00	0.40	4.00	0.00	4.00
Mentor	2.33	4.00	1.40	4.00	1.50	3.83
All	0.04	4.00	0.04	4.00	0.00	4.00

Participants*	Score of perception of PET effectiveness

	Purpose	Process	Impact

	Mean (sd)*	Mean (sd)*	Mean (sd)*
Position in PET
Student	3.19 (0.73)	2.96 (0.87)	3.16 (0.72)
Preceptor	3.38 (0.64)	3.04 (0.98)	2.80 (1.02)
Mentor	3.36 (0.50)	3.35 (0.67)	2.92 (0.65)
ANOVA, p =	0.026	0.097	<0.001
Gender
Female	3.28 (0.66)	3.01(0.90)	3.08 (0.79)
Male	3.16 (0.83)	2.96 (0.90)	2.84 (0.99)
ANOVA, p=	0.183	0.637	0.024
Age at entry
1^st quartile	3.20 (0.74)	3.03 (0.83)	3.08 (0.82)
Median	3.30 (0.66)	2.97 (0.95)	3.04 (0.83)
3^rd quartile	3.23 (0.71)	3.03 (0.88)	2.99 (0.86)
ANOVA, p =	0.398	0.848	0.736
Course area
Biomedical	3.24 (0.67)	2.90 0.92	2.98 0.85
Management and care	3.30 (0.72)	3.12 0.90	3.11 0.84
Psychosocial	3.22 (0.710)	3.09 (0.77)	3.07 (0.79)
ANOVA, p =	0.652	0.057	0.297
Year of PET notice
2008 and 2010	3.03 (0.71)	2.62 (0.86)	2.68 (0.78)
2011	3.30 (0.72)	3.10 (0.88)	3.14 (0.82)
2012 and 2013	3.36 (0.61)	3.16 (0.87)	3.16 (0.82)
ANOVA, p =	<0.01	<0.01	<0.001
TOTAL	3.26 (0.70)	3.00 (0.90)	3.04 (0.83)

[TFN3] Did not respond: a = 1 student; b = 2 students; c = 1 student; d = 3 students; e = 3 students; f = 1 student; g = 2 preceptors-mentors

[TFN4] Source: Own elaboration (2017).

Efetividade da educação no trabalho em um programa de saúde: uma estratégia para a formação profissional e a aprendizagem ao longo da vida

Resumo