Descriptions of Perceived Quality of Life of Residents from a Quilombo in North Brazil

Authors

  • Luiz Vinicius de Alcantara Sousa Laboratório de Epidemiologia e Análise de Dados, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC (FMABC) – Santo André (SP)
  • Erika da Silva Maciel Universidade Federal de Tocantins (UFT) – Palmas (TO)
  • Fernando Rodrigues Peixoto Quaresma Centro Universitário Luterano de Palmas (CEULP/ULBRA
  • Laércio da Silva Paiva Laboratório de Epidemiologia e Análise de Dados, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC (FMABC) – Santo André (SP)
  • Fernando Luiz Affonso Fonseca Laboratório de Análises Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina do ABC
  • Fernando Adami Laboratório de Epidemiologia e Análise de Dados, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC (FMABC) – Santo André (SP) /Bolsa Produtividade em Pesquisa (CNPq nº 309579 / 2015-5)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.147239

Keywords:

Quality of life, Vulnerable Populations, racial inequality, community.

Abstract

The study aimed to describe the perceptions regarding the quality of life of Quilombola community in the municipality of Santa Tereza, Tocantins, Brazil. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with children in the Quilombola community. To evaluate the children's quality of life, the questionnaire named Vie Enfant Imagé's Autoquestionnaire Qualité was used, composed of four factors: Autonomy, Leisure, Function, and Family. To evaluate the quality of life in adults, the World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment was used. The program used was Stata version 11.0. Regarding the quality of life of the children according to gender, the girls presented a mean of 11.0 in the Function factor, in the Family, Leisure, and Autonomy factor, presented with a mean of 12.3, 8.2 and 4.8, respectively. For boys, the Function factor had a mean of 11.0, the Family factor of 12.0, and the Leisure and Autonomy factors of 7.6 and 5.6, in this sequence. Among the adults, the men had lower values in the Physical domain with a mean of 13.7, the women had lower averages in the Physical and Environmental domains, with values equal to 13.8. In the general scores, the male sex obtained higher value when compared to the female sex, 14.0 and 13.6, respectively. The study showed that among the children, the Family factor had higher mean values, followed by the Function, Leisure, and Autonomy factors, respectively. When studying adults, the domain with the best score was Social Relations, on the other hand, the Physical domain presented the worst score for men and women. However, investigations carried out regarding the quality of life in quilombolas represent a still low number, making it difficult to understand the possibilities of improving the quality of life in this population.

References

Silva VG. Religion and black cultural identity. Roman Catholics, Afro-Brazilians and Neopentecostalism. Vibrant Virtual Braz Anthr. 2014;11(2):210-46. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1809-43412014000200008

Eugenio BG, Lima KD. The construction of identity in the remaining community quilombola of Tucum-BA. Poiésis Rev Prog Pós Grad Educ. 2014;8(13):203-22.

Silva JAN. Sanitary and health conditions in Caiana dos Crioulos, a Quilombo community in the State of Paraíba. Saúde Soc. 2007;16(2):111-24. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902007000200011

Bezerra VM, Andrade ACS, César CC, Caiaffa WT. Quilombo communities in Vitória da Conquista, Bahia state, Brazil: Hypertension and associated factors Cad Saúde Pública. 2013;29(9):1889-902. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00164912

Gomes KO, Reis EA, Guimarães MDC, Cherchiglia ML. Use of health services by quilombo communities in southwest Bahia State, Brazil. Cad Saúde Pública. 2013;29(9):1829-42. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00151412

Brousse C, Boisaubert B. Quality of life and scales measuring. Revue Med Interne. 2007;28(7):458-62. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.revmed.2007.02.010

Campos MO, Rodrigues Neto JF. Qualidade de vida: um instrumento para promoção de saúde. Rev Baiana Saúde Pública. 2008;32(2):232-40.

Hanmer J, Feeny D, Fischhoff B, Hays RD, Hess R, Pilkonis PA, et al. The PROMIS of QALYs. Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2015;13:122. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0321-6

Teixeira, R. F., & Barbosa, L. (2016). Comunidade Quilombola Barra da Aroeira (TO): abordagem fenomenológica das práticas ecológicas. Redes. 2016;21(2):63-86. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17058/redes.v21i2.4757

Assumpção Jr FB, Kuczynski E, Sprovieri M, Aranha E. Quality of life evaluation scale (AUQEI): validity and reliability of a quality of life scale for children from 4 to 12 years-old. Rev Neuro-Psiquiatr. 2000;58(1):119-27. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0004-282X2000000100018

Souza JGS, Pamponet MA, Souza TCS, Pereira AR, Souza AGS, Martins AMEBL. Tools used for evaluation of Brazilian children’s quality of life. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2014;32(2):272-8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-0582201432214313

Oliveira SKM, Pereira MM, Guimarães ALS, Caldeira AP. Self-perceived health among ‘quilombolas’ in northern Minas Gerais, Brazil. Ciênc Saude Coletiva. 2015; 20(9):2879-90. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232015209.20342014

Pereira RMP, Batista MA, Meira AS, Oliveira MP, Kusumota L. Quality of life of elderly patients with chronic kidney disease under conservative management. Rev Bras Enferm. 2017;70(4):887-95. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2017-0103

Fleck MPA, Louzada S, Xavier M, Chachamovich E, Vieira G, Santos L, et al. Application of the Portuguese version of the abbreviated instrument of quality life WHOQOL-bref. Rev Saúde Pública. 2000;34(2):178-83. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102000000200012

Pedroso B, Picinin CT, Cantorani JRH, Gutierrez GL. Inferências da Organização Mundial da Saúde na promoção da qualidade de vida: uma explanação contemporânea dos instrumentos WHOQOL. Rev Bras Qualid Vida. 2013;5(4):19-25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3895/S2175-08582013000400003

Almeida-Brasil CC, Silveira MR, Silva KR, Lima MG, Faria CDCM, Cardoso CL, et al. Qualidade de vida e características associadas: aplicação do WHOQOL-BREF no contexto da Atenção Primária à Saúde. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva. 2017;22(5):1705-16. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232017225.20362015

Araújo AF, Souza MEA, Menezes CA. Quality of life and socio-economical aspects of diabetics type 1. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metab. 2008;52(7):1124-30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0004-27302008000700008

Castro MG, Oliveira MS, Moraes, JFD, Miguel AC, Araujo RB. Quality of life and severity of tobacco dependence. Rev Psiquiatr Clín. 2007;34(2):61-7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-60832007000200001

Gordia AP, Quadros TMB, Vilela Júnior GB, Souza EA, Cabral C, Morais TB, et al. Comparação da qualidade de vida de mulheres idosas praticantes e não praticantes de exercício físico. Rev Digital. 2007;11(106).

Neves ETB, Perazzo MF, Gomes, MC, Martins CC, Paiva SM, Granville‐Garcia AF. Perception of parents and self‐reports of children regarding the impact of traumatic dental injury on quality of life. Dent Traumatol. 2017;33(6):444-50. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/edt.12366

Andrade JMO, Rios LR, Teixeira LS, Vieira FS, Mendes DC, Vieira MA, et al. Influence of socioeconomic factors on the quality of life of elderly hypertensive individuals. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva. 2014;19(8):3497-3504. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232014198.19952013

Nishijima T, Martins LAR. (2010). Preservação ambiental e qualidade de vida em comunidades Quilombolas. Rev Eletr Gestão Educ Tecnol Amb. 2010;1(1):59-69.

Downloads

Published

2018-06-26

Issue

Vol. 28 No. 2 (2018)

Section

Artigos Originais

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis