Knowledge about tuberculosis in individuals deprived of liberty of a regional penitentiary in the Zona da Mata Mineira - Brazil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X43381Keywords:
Prison, Knowledge, TuberculosisAbstract
Objective: To evaluate knowledge related to TB and to investigate the predictive factors of the prisoners' knowledge status in a regional penitentiary in the Zona da Mata Mineira - Brazil. Methods: This is a cross-sectional and institutionally based study that was conducted with 729 individuals deprived of their liberty in a regional penitentiary. A questionnaire was applied and the detainees 'knowledge about tuberculosis was obtained from the participants' answers to questions about tuberculosis prevention, transmission and treatment. For data analysis, multiple logistic regression was used. Results: Approximately 40% of the detainees reported not having knowledge about transmission, prevention and treatment of tuberculosis and the lack of knowledge was associated with the following variables: lower education, lower income, closed regime, being the first prison, not having contact with TB outside and inside the prison, not showing symptoms of cough with secretion, weakness and chest pain and not having an HIV test. Conclusion: The lack of knowledge about tuberculosis was associated with education, income, prison terms, first prison, contact with TB outside and inside the prison, symptoms of tuberculosis and HIV testing. The recognition of these factors can contribute to the development of educational interventions aimed at controlling tuberculosis in this population.
Downloads
References
ABEBE, DS, et al. Assessment of knowledge and practice about tuberculosis among eastern Ethiopian prisoners. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. v.15, n. 2, p. 228–233, Fev, 2011.
ADANE K, et al. Tuberculosis knowledge, attitudes, and practices among northern Ethiopian prisoners: Implications for TB control efforts. Plos One. v.12, n. 3, E0174692, Mar, 2017.
AKEKE V, MOKGATLE M, OGUNTIBEJU O. Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices that facilitate the transmission of HIV among prison inmates: a review. KMJ. v.39, n.4, p. 310-318, Dec, 2007.
BAUSSANO I, et al. Tuberculosis incidence in prisons: a systematic review. Plos Med. v.7, n. 12, E1000381, Dec. 2010.
BRASIL. Manual de Recomendações para o Controle da Tuberculose no Brasil. Ministério da Saúde/Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde/Departamento de Vigilância das Doenças Transmissíveis. 2 ed. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2019.
BRASIL. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em saúde. Tuberculose. Situação epidemiológica estados associados ao Mercosul. Brasília, DF, 2015 p.19.
COSTA, Silvana Monteiro et al. Conhecimento dos clientes com tuberculose pulmonar e seus familiares sobre adesão ao tratamento e fatores associados, no município do Rio Grande (RS). Ciênc. saúde coletiva, Rio de Janeiro, v. 16, supl. 1, p. 1427-1435, 2011.
DARA M, et al. Tuberculosis control in prisons: current situation and research gaps. Int J Infect Dis. v. 32, p.111-7, Mar, 2015.
FERREIRA JUNIOR, S; OLIVEIRA, HB; MARIN-LEON, L. Knowledge, attitudes and practices on tuberculosis in prisons and public health services. Rev. bras. Epidemiol. São Paulo, v. 16, n. 1, p. 100-113, Mar. 2013.
FREITAS, IM et al. Knowledge and perception about tuberculosis of patients' families under directly observed treatment at a health service in Ribeirão Preto-SP, Brazil. Texto contexto – enferm. Florianópolis, v. 21, n. 3, p. 642-649, Sep. 2012.
FREITAS, IM de et al. Factors associated with knowledge about tuberculosis and attitudes of relatives of patients with the disease in Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil. Rev. bras. Epidemiol. São Paulo, v. 18, n. 2, p. 326-340, Jun, 2015.
MOREIRA TR, FÁVERO JL, MACIEL ELN. Tuberculose no sistema prisional capixaba. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Saúde. Vitória, v. 12, n. 1, p. 26-33, 2010.
MOREIRA TR, et al. Prevalência de tuberculose na população privada de liberdade: revisão sistemática e metanálise. Rev Panam Salud Publica. v. 43, n.16, Jan, 2019.
NIVEAU G. Prevention of infectious disease transmission in correctional settings: a re¬view. Public Health. v. 120, n. 1, p. 33–41, 2006.
PAGANO M, GAUVREAU K. Princípios de Bioestatística. São Paulo: Cengage Learning, 2010.
RAMOS, J, et al. Knowledge and perceptions of tuberculosis transmission and prevention among physicians and nurses in three Brazilian capitals with high incidence of tuberculosis. J.
bras. Pneumol. São Paulo, v. 44, n. 2, p. 168-170, Apr. 2018.
RÊGO AS, et al. Understanding and attitudes of relatives of inmates regarding tuberculosis: a descriptive study. Online braz j nurs. Niterói, v. 16, n.1, p. 17-27, mar 2017.
ROCHA GSS, et al. Conhecimento dos agentes comunitários de saúde sobre a tuberculose, suas medidas de controle e tratamento diretamente observado. Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 31, n. 7, p. 1483-1496, July 2015 .
SACRAMENTO DS, GONÇAVEZ MJF. Situação da tuberculose em pessoas privadas de liberdade no período de 2007 a 2012. Rev enferm UFPE online. Recife, v.11, n. 1, p.140-51, jan., 2017.
SANCHEZ, AR, et al. A tuberculose nas prisões do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil: uma urgência de saúde pública. Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 23, n. 3, p. 545-552, mar. 2007.
SANTANA ACM, et al.. Tuberculose no cárcere: percepção dos detentos sobre essa enfermidade. Rev enferm UFPE on line., Recife, v. 9, n. 6, p.8222-7, jun., 2015.
SOUZA KMJ, VILLA TCS, ASSOLINE FEP, BERALDO AA, FRANÇA UM, PROTTIL ST, PALHA PF. Atraso no diagnóstico da tuberculose em sistema prisional: a experiência do doente apenado. Texto contexto - Enferm., Jan./Mar. vol.21 no.1 Florianopolis, 2012.
STORLA D G, YIMER S, BJUNE G A. A systematic review of delay in the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis. BMC Public Health. v. 8, n. 15. Jan, 2008.
VERONESI R, FOCACCIA R. Tuberculose. In: Melo, F.A.F. et al. Tratado de Infectologia. 4rd ed. São Paulo: Atheneu, 2009.
VITTI JUNIOR W. O controle da tuberculose nos presídios: atuação das equipes de saúde na região (DRS VI) de Bauru/SP. [Tese de Doutorado]. Botucatu: Universidade Estadual Paulista, 2013. 123fls.
WAISBORD S. Participatory communication for tuberculosis control in prisons in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Paraguay. Rev. Panam. Salud Publica, v. 27, n. 3, p. 168-173, 2010.
WHO. World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report, 2019. Geneva: World Hearlth Organization, 2019. Disponível em: https://www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/en/. Acesso em: dez. 2019.
Published
Versions
- 2022-04-06 (2)
- 2021-05-18 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Ciência e Natura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
