OBJECTIVE: to analyze the Family Health Strategy (FHS) coverage time trend in Brazil, its Regions and Federative Units (FUs) in 2006-2016. METHODS: this was an ecological study with time series analysis of Ministry of Health Primary Care Department data; Prais-Winsten regression was used. RESULTS: FHS coverage in Brazil in 2006 and 2016 was 45.3% and 64.0%, respectively, with an increasing trend of coverage (annual variation = 8.4%: 95%CI 7.4;9.3); all five regions showed an increasing trend in coverage, as did the majority of FUs, with the exception of Roraima, Amapá, Piauí, Rio Grande do Norte and Paraíba, which showed stability; in 2016, 14 FUs had coverage of between 75 and 100%, and 11 had coverage of between 50 and 74,9%; coverage in São Paulo and Federal District was below 50%. CONCLUSION: although, overall, FHS coverage increased, 13 FUs presented coverages below 75% in 2016; therefore, more efforts are needed to universalize coverage.
OBJECTIVE: to analyze the Family Health Strategy (FHS) coverage time trend in Brazil, its Regions and Federative Units (FUs) in 2006-2016. METHODS: this was an ecological study with time series analysis of Ministry of Health Primary Care Department data; Prais-Winsten regression was used. RESULTS: FHS coverage in Brazil in 2006 and 2016 was 45.3% and 64.0%, respectively, with an increasing trend of coverage (annual variation = 8.4%: 95%CI 7.4;9.3); all five regions showed an increasing trend in coverage, as did the majority of FUs, with the exception of Roraima, Amapá, Piauí, Rio Grande do Norte and Paraíba, which showed stability; in 2016, 14 FUs had coverage of between 75 and 100%, and 11 had coverage of between 50 and 74,9%; coverage in São Paulo and Federal District was below 50%. CONCLUSION: although, overall, FHS coverage increased, 13 FUs presented coverages below 75% in 2016; therefore, more efforts are needed to universalize coverage.
Authors: Sanderson José Costa de Assis; Johnnatas Mikael Lopes; Marcello Barbosa Otoni Gonçalves Guedes; Geronimo José Bouzas Sanchis; Diego Neves Araujo; Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Suellen R Mendes; Renata C Martins; Juliana V M Mambrini; Antônio Thomaz G Matta-Machado; Grazielle C M Mattos; Jennifer E Gallagher; Mauro H N G Abreu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anya Pimentel Gomes Fernandes Vieira-Meyer; Ana Patrícia Pereira Morais; José Maria Ximenes Guimarães; Isabella Lima Barbosa Campelo; Neiva Francenely Cunha Vieira; Maria de Fátima Antero Sousa Machado; Paula Sacha Frota Nogueira; Sharmênia de Araújo Soares Nuto; Roberto Wagner Júnior Freire de Freitas Journal: Rev Saude Publica Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Toby Freeman; Hailay Abrha Gesesew; Clare Bambra; Elsa Regina Justo Giugliani; Jennie Popay; David Sanders; James Macinko; Connie Musolino; Fran Baum Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2020-11-10
Authors: Marquiony Marques Dos Santos; Tatyana Maria Silva de Souza Rosendo; Ana Karla Bezerra Lopes; Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli; Kenio Costa de Lima Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2021-02-05
Authors: Adriana De Sá Pinheiro; Sandra Souza Lima; Glenda Roberta Oliveira Naiff Ferreira; Alexsandra Rodrigues Feijão; Richardson Augusto Rosendo da Silva; Elucir Gir; Renata Karina Reis; Fernanda Maria Vieira Pereira; Lucia Hisako Takase Gonçalves; Sandra Helena Isse Polaro; Aline Maria Pereira Cruz Ramos; Elia Pinheiro Botelho Journal: J Public Health Res Date: 2021-11-29
Authors: Danielle Viana Ribeiro Ramos; João Luiz Miraglia; Camila Nascimento Monteiro; Danielle Borchardt; Leonardo Tribis; Thais Paragis Sanchez; Daiana Bonfim; Danielle da Costa Palacio; Maria da Luz Rosário de Souza; Marília Jesus Batista de Brito Mota Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 2.655