Política de Assistência Social: a assessoria técnica no MPSP
Resumen
Considerando o cenário atual de retrocesso dos direitos sociais garantidos na Constituição Federal este estudo visa apresentar a avaliação da Assistência Social na cidade de São Paulo pelos profissionais do Núcleo de Assessoria Técnica Psicossocial/NAT do MPSP. As visitas aos CRAS e CREAS são estratégias para entender a implementação da política, dado seu importante papel na rede socioassistencial. Observam-se a transferência da atuação do Estado para organizações sociais por meio de conveniamentos; insuficiência de equipamentos e déficits de Recursos Humanos; ênfase nos PTR; e ausência ou insuficiência de articulação intersetorial. Isso dialoga com a produção acadêmica sobre as contradições na implantação da política, bem como os limites e possibilidades da assessoria técnica no MPSP.
Referencias
(1) Linde K, Willich SN. How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine. J R Soc Med 2003 Jan;96(1):17-22.
(2) Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK: Wiley. 2008.
(3) Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 2002 Feb 16;359(9306):614-8.
(4) Millard LA, Flach PA, Higgins JP. Machine learning to assist risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews. Int J Epidemiol 2016 Feb;45(1):266-77.
(5) Savovic J, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Turner L, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation. Syst Rev 2014;3:37.
(6) Armijo-Olivo S, Ospina M, da Costa BR, Egger M, Saltaji H, Fuentes J, et al. Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials. PLoS One 2014;9(5):e96920.
(7) Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Krebs SJ, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 2009;339:b4012.
(8) Hartling L, Bond K, Vandermeer B, Seida J, Dryden DM, Rowe BH. Applying the risk of bias tool in a systematic review of combination long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma. PLoS One 2011;6(2):e17242.
(9) Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A, Vandermeer B, Santaguida PL, Ansari M, et al. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol 2013 Sep;66(9):973-81.
(10) Lensen S, Farquhar C, Jordon V. Risk of bias: are judgements consistent between reviews? Cochrane Database Syst Rev Suppl 1[30]. 2014.
(11) Akobeng AK. Understanding randomised controlled trials. Arch Dis Child 2005 Aug;90(8):840-4.
(12) Law M, Philp I. Systematically reviewing the evidence. In: Law M. Evidence-based rehabilitation: a guide to practice. Thorofare (NJ): SLACK Inc. 2002.
(13) SAMPAIO RF, MANCINI MC. Estudos de Revisão Sistemática: Um Guia para Síntese Criteriosa da Evidência Científica. Rev.bras.fisioter 11[1], 83-89. 2007.
(14) Yu IT, Tse SL. Clinical Epidemiology Workshop 11 - Sources of bias in systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis. Hong Kong Med J 19[2], 156-158. 2013.
(15) Fourth International Conference on Grey Literature: New Frontiers in Grey Literature. GreyNet, Grey Literature Network Service, Washington DC, USA. 4-5. 1999.
(16) Pereira GP, Galvão TF. Heterogeneidade e viés de publicação em revisões sistemáticas. Epidemiol.Serv.Saúde 23[2], 775-778. 2014.
(17) Yu IT, Tse SL. Clinical Epidemiology Workshop 7—Appraising a study on diagnosis. Hong Kong Med J 18, 325-326. 2012.
(18) Yu IT, Tse SL. Clinical Epidemiology Workshop 8—Appraising a study on therapy. Hong Kong Med 18, 19-20. 2012.
(19) Yu IT, Tse SL. Clinical Epidemiology Workshop 9 - Appraising a study on prognosis. Hong Kong Med J 18, 507-508. 2012.
(20) Yu IT, Tse SL. Clinical Epidemiology Workshop 10—Appraising a study on risk factors or aetiology. Hong Kong Med J 19, 50-51. 2013.
(21) Yu IT, Tse SL. Clinical Epidemiology Workshop 3—Sources of bias in case series, patient cohorts, and randomised controlled. Hong Kong Med J 17, 478-479. 2011.
