Educación emocional en la educación para la salud: cuestión de Salud Pública

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

RESUMEN El modelo holístico de salud exige incluir las emociones en las estrategias de prevención y promoción. Para comprobar la extensión de su consideración en la educación para la salud, se realizó una revisión sistemática en las bases de datos Medline, PsycInfo y ERIC. Se aceptaron 66 de los 648 artículos revisados, hallándose gran diversidad temática, teórica y terminológica respecto a la salud emocional. Por tanto, la representación en la literatura científica de las estrategias de educación para la salud que incluyen las emociones es todavía pequeña. Asimismo, aquellas que sí las incluyen presentan una gran variedad terminológica y teórica que dificulta la difusión del conocimiento y la generalización de resultados. Se pone de manifiesto la necesidad de implementación de un modelo de formación para la salud en el que se incluya la educación emocional como componente fundamental de la misma, en sintonía con los recientes avances científicos.

Translated abstract

ABSTRACT The holistic model of health requires the inclusion of emotions in prevention and promotion policies. A systematic review was carried out in databases Medline, PsychInfo, and ERIC to check the extent to which emotions are covered in health education. Sixty-six of the 648 papers reviewed were accepted, presenting a wide range of topics, theories, and terms regarding emotional health. Therefore, health education strategies that take emotions into consideration are still underrepresented in scie.jpgic literature. Moreover, a great terminological and theorical diversity is found among the ones that incorporate emotional health, hindering knowledge dissemination and generalization of results. The need for an implementation of a health education model where emotional education is included as an essential part of it, according to recent scie.jpgic advances is clearly shown.

Related collections

Most cited references 90

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2009)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.