Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2016 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Paula, Paulo Renato Simmons de
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Freitas Júnior, Ruffo de
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Freitas Júnior, Ruffo de,
Gragnani Filho, Alfredo,
Carneiro, Antônio Fernando,
Frota Neto, Antônio Raimundo da,
Urban, Cícero de andrade |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal de Goiás
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciências da Saúde (FM)
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Medicina - FM (RG)
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://repositorio.bc.ufg.br/tede/handle/tede/6328
|
Resumo: |
OBJECTIVES: Analyze the prevalence of the pre-operative depressive symptoms (SD) in patients who search cosmetic breast surgeries (with and without implants) in two different institutions (public and private) comparing: the types of surgeries, institutions and their sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study on the prevalence of DS, among patients seeking cosmetic breast surgery using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and questionnaire of sociodemographic datas for statistical comparison. RESULTS: 185 patients were included between 18 and 71 years and the greatest demand in the public institution was the reduction mammoplasty while in private was for breast augmentation.Among the institutions, there were statistically significant differences in socio-demographic variables: age (p=0.034), skin color (p<0.001), marital status between cohabiting and divorced (p=029 and p=0.039 respectively), schooling (p=0.002) and income (p<0.001). There were differences in the distribution of scores between institutions (p=0.03) and in the number and percentage of DS evaluation categories with a prevalence of 120% and 242% more positive depressive disorder’s risk (R+TD: ≥15 points in BDI-II) respectively with moderate to severe level in the public institution. The prevalence of R+TD in public institution was 25.8%, while the private was 11.6% (p=0.012). Among the patients with R+TD, the variables: age, schooling and income were statistically significant (p<0.001 for all), after Poisson’s regression. No patient of mastopexy without implants presented R+TD and the highest prevalence of this (51.4%) occurred in breast implant patients (breast augmentation and mastopexy with implants). The presence (p=0.12) or absence (p=0.33) of implant did not demonstrate a higher risk for depression with statistically significant. Among all patients, 7% answered positively about suicide item, with predominance within the group of implants (54.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of DS is high (18.9%), with greater risk of 2,3 in public. Patients from public and private institutions showed different profiles. Age, less education and lower income are possible predictors of R+TD in this population. There was no statistically significant difference between R+TD and the different kinds of cosmetic breast surgeries among institutions. Patients for breast implant do not shown to have a higher significant of SD. |
