Submitted by Aelson Maciera (aelsoncm@terra.com.br) on 2017-08-16T18:00:15Z No. of bitstreams: 1 TeseARLS.pdf: 1226089 bytes, checksum: f9b0f71fd6df402c4cbe47b4b483be8d (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ronildo Prado (producaointelectual.bco@ufscar.br) on 2017-10-31T16:19:03Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 TeseARLS.pdf: 1226089 bytes, checksum: f9b0f71fd6df402c4cbe47b4b483be8d (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ronildo Prado (producaointelectual.bco@ufscar.br) on 2017-10-31T16:19:13Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 TeseARLS.pdf: 1226089 bytes, checksum: f9b0f71fd6df402c4cbe47b4b483be8d (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-10-31T16:23:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 TeseARLS.pdf: 1226089 bytes, checksum: f9b0f71fd6df402c4cbe47b4b483be8d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-03-29 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / This research encompass two studies. The objectives of Study A composed by two steps: Stage 1- In the period of 10 years (2005 – 2014), identify and analyze theses and dissertations produced in Brazilian graduate program with objective of development proposal of Early Intervention Programs for children's development were identified and analyzed to seek main variables studied; and Stage 2: - The proposals of Early Intervention Programs developed that identified in previous stage were characterized and assessed. The Study B described evaluations of Early Intervention Programs after the event of researchers responsible for proposal and execution, as well as continuity of work after conclusion of research. The Study A based on data from the Theses and Dissertations Bank of Brazilian Digital Library (BDTD), whose search descriptors were: early attention, early stimulation, essential stimulation, child stimulation, child development stimulation, early intervention, development surveillance and screening of development. According to two independent judges with pre-defined criteria of inclusion and exclusion, this Study analyzed 25 cases integrally. In step 1, the protocol "Early Intervention Programs Characterization" (PIP) used to systematize information about participants, methodological considerations, intervention characteristics, studied variables, results, limitations and future studies, whose results indicated a predominance of indirect PIPs (13/25) that worked with training and formation of mediators. The presence of children in the PIP varied between forms of individual participation and groups. The mediators of the mixed intervention studies, who participated in PIP, along with children, were mainly parents / guardians. The categories of limitations and / or risks for development: Prevention, Risk and Disability, with a higher incidence of studies in category of Risks. Only one research used an equal control group design and follow-up evaluation was presented in three studies. Ten programs concurred with traditional paradigm and new paradigm, only one study presented characteristics of New Paradigm and the Family-Centered Model. The contexts in which interventions carried out were residences, kindergartens and university. Indirect interventions had a longer duration when compared to direct interventions. The target behaviors / abilities of intervention related to child development and parental and professional training. The results mostly evaluated as positive regardless of intervention type performed. Only three studies indicated non-effective results. 14 studies indicated limitations regarding both research design / procedure and intervention program. Questions raised for future research on methodology, such as longitudinal studies, extension of intervention, extension of sample searched and higher frequency of evaluations. Family demands related to parental / caregiver adherence to intervention programs, parents / child bonding and family / school relationship, and in professional context, knowledge about health surveillance and development surveillance was highlighted. In step 2, the protocol "Evaluation of Early Intervention Programs" (adapted from Mendes, 2010) used to analyze the programs within the community, family, child and intervention program, whose results indicated that community level, 14 studies did not indicate referral procedures, used voluntary or convenience samples. The eligibility criteria for PIPs quite diverse; 18 studies did not mention screening procedures for participation in program; information to families generally provided at beginning of program and it is also possible to inform that IPPs more directed to interests of researchers than to real needs of population. At the family level it can be verified that host interview and presentation the PIP were more frequent than actions that involved planning of support to families. At children's level, studies focused on social life and child autonomy. At PIP level, they showed more frequently performance of a single professional, without specific training; with activity plans that presented some information gaps such as: objectives, materials, teaching and registration procedures; few revisions in intervention proposals observed, with main concern in effectiveness of programs, whose evaluations based on non-standardized instruments. In the Step 1 results indicated that there was indirect predominance of PIPs (13/25) that worked with training, mediator development. The presence of children in PIP varied between individual forms participation and groups. Mediators of mixed intervention Studies, who participated in PIP, along with the children, were mainly the parents / guardians. Limitations and / or risks for development had been categorized: Prevention, Risk and Disability, with a higher incidence of studies in the category of Risks. Just one research used control group design and follow-up assessment presented by three Studies. Ten programs concomitantly met traditional paradigm and new paradigm, just one study presented characteristics of New Paradigm and the Family-Centered Model. The interventions carried out in residences, kindergartens and university. Indirect interventions had a longer duration when compared to direct interventions. The target behaviors / skills of intervention related to child development and parental and professional development. Independent of type of intervention performed, the results mostly evaluated as positive. Only three research indicated non-effective results. 14 studies indicated relative limitations to research design / procedure and intervention program. For future research, questions relating to methodology was highlighted, such as longitudinal studies, extension of intervention, extension of sample surveyed, higher frequency of evaluations. In family context, demands referred to participation of parents / caregivers in intervention programs, parents / child bond and family / school relationship, and in professional scope, knowledge about surveillance of development and health / education integration highlighted. Step 2 results indicated that in 14 studies there were no referral procedures in community analyzes level whose samples were voluntary or convenience; diversified eligibility criteria for PIPs; 18 studies no mention screening procedures for participation in the program; information had been provided in beginning of program for family; it is possible inform that PIPs more directed to researchers interests than real needs of population. In family level, it can verify that foster interview and PIP presentation were more frequent than actions with planning of support to families. In children's level, the studies focused on social life and children's autonomy. In PIP level emphasized more frequently performance of single professional, without specific qualification; activity plans with some gaps information such as: objectives, materials, teaching and registration procedures; few revisions in intervention proposals were observed, with main concern in effectiveness of programs, whose evaluations were based on non-standardized instruments. Study B analyzed posteriori assessment of researchers responsible for proposing and executing the Early Intervention Programs, as well as their continuity after their conclusion. Ten researchers answered a questionnaire with following topics: validity period, institutional support, concomitance between closure of research and program, and assessment of program regarding objectives / focus of intervention, screening procedures and evaluation procedures, family participation, engaged professionals, child development and results obtained vs expected. The results had been indicated that programs lasted up to 12 months; six of them had financial support; closure of the programs occurred concurrently in eight of them; it were positively evaluated by their proponents; it presented questions to be improved regarding theoretical reference, organization and planning of actions to be developed. It can indicate that research involving early intervention presented are important initiatives to deal to early stimulation in children with different risk factors and / or disabilities and producing knowledge in Brazilian context. / Esta pesquisa foi organizada em dois estudos. O Estudo A, composto por duas etapas, teve por objetivos: Etapa 1 - identificar e analisar, no período de 10 anos (2005-2014), as teses e dissertações produzidas em programas de pós-graduação brasileiros que tiveram o objetivo de desenvolver propostas de Programas de Intervenção Precoce para o desenvolvimento infantil buscando captar as principais variáveis estudadas e, Etapa 2 - caracterizar e avaliar as propostas de Programas de Intervenção Precoce desenvolvidas nas pesquisas identificadas na etapa anterior. O Estudo B objetivou descrever as avaliações dos Programas de Intervenção Precoce a posteriori dos pesquisadores responsáveis pela proposição e execução, bem como a continuidade do trabalho após a conclusão da pesquisa. O Estudo A teve como fonte de dados o Banco da Biblioteca Brasileira Digital de Teses e Dissertações (BDTD), cujos descritores de busca foram: atenção precoce, estimulação precoce, estimulação essencial, estimulação infantil, estimulação do desenvolvimento infantil, intervenção precoce, vigilância do desenvolvimento e triagem do desenvolvimento. A seleção dos estudos foi realizada por dois juízes independentes de acordo com critérios de inclusão e exclusão pré-definidos, chegando a um total de 25 estudos analisados na íntegra. Na Etapa 1 foi utilizado o protocolo “Caracterização dos Programas de Intervenção Precoce” (PIP) com o objetivo de sistematizar informações referentes aos participantes, considerações metodológicas, características da intervenção, variáveis estudadas, resultados, limitações e futuros estudos, cujos resultados indicaram um predomínio de PIP indiretos (13/25) que trabalharam com a capacitação e formação de mediadores. A presença das crianças nos PIP variou entre as formas de participação individual e grupos. Os mediadores dos estudos com intervenção mista que participaram dos PIP, juntamente com as crianças, foram principalmente os pais/responsáveis. As limitações e/ou riscos para o desenvolvimento foram categorizadas em: Prevenção, Risco e Deficiências, havendo uma maior incidência de estudos na categoria de Riscos. Apenas uma pesquisa empregou delineamento com grupo controle equivalente e a avaliação de follow-up foi apresentada em três estudos. Dez programas atendiam concomitantemente ao paradigma tradicional e novo paradigma, apenas um estudo apresentou características do Novo Paradigma e do Modelo centrado na família. Os contextos nos quais as intervenções se realizaram foram residências, creches e universidade. As intervenções indiretas apresentaram uma duração maior quando comparadas às diretas. As habilidades/comportamentos alvo da intervenção estavam relacionadas ao desenvolvimento infantil e a capacitação parental e profissional. Os resultados foram majoritariamente avaliados como positivo independentemente do tipo de intervenção realizada. Apenas três estudos indicaram resultados não efetivos. 14 estudos indicaram limitações relativas tanto ao delineamento/procedimento da pesquisa quanto ao programa de intervenção. Foram assinaladas questões para futuras pesquisas relativas à metodologia, como, por exemplo, estudos longitudinais, extensão da intervenção, ampliação da amostra pesquisada e maior frequência das avaliações. As demandas no âmbito familiar se referiram a adesão de pais/cuidadores aos programas de intervenção, vínculo pais/criança e relação família/escola e, no âmbito profissional, destacaram-se o conhecimento sobre vigilância do desenvolvimento e integração saúde/educação. Na Etapa 2 foi empregado o protocolo “Avaliação dos Programas de Intervenção Precoce” para análise dos programas no âmbito da comunidade, família, criança e programa de intervenção, cujos resultados indicaram que, no nível da comunidade, 14 estudos não indicaram procedimentos de encaminhamentos, utilizaram amostras voluntárias ou de conveniência. Os critérios de elegibilidade para os PIP foram bastante diversificados; 18 estudos não fizeram menção aos procedimentos de triagem para a participação no programa; as informações às famílias eram fornecidas em geral no início do programa e, é possível, também, informar que os PIP foram mais voltados aos interesses dos pesquisadores do que às reais necessidades da população. No nível da família pode-se verificar que a entrevista de acolhimento e apresentação do PIP foram mais frequentes do que ações que envolviam planejamento de apoio às famílias. No nível das crianças, os estudos focaram a vida social e autonomia infantil. No nível dos PIP evidenciaram mais frequentemente a atuação de um único profissional, sem formação específica; com planos de atividades que apresentavam algumas lacunas de informações como: objetivos, materiais, procedimentos de ensino e de registro; foram observadas poucas revisões nas propostas de intervenção, com principal preocupação na eficácia dos programas, cujas avaliações foram baseadas em instrumentos não padronizados. Do Estudo B participaram 10 pesquisadores que responderam a um questionário que continha os seguintes tópicos: período de vigência, apoio institucional, concomitância entre o encerramento da pesquisa e do programa, e avaliação do programa quanto a objetivos/foco da intervenção, procedimentos de triagem e de avaliação, participação da família, profissionais envolvidos, desenvolvimento da criança e resultados obtidos x esperados. Os resultados indicaram que: os programas duraram até 12 meses; seis deles tiveram apoio financeiro; o encerramento dos programas aconteceu de forma concomitante em oito deles; foram avaliados positivamente por seus proponentes; apresentaram questões a serem aprimoradas quanto ao referencial teórico, a organização e planejamento das ações a serem desenvolvidas. Pode-se indicar que as pesquisas envolvendo intervenção precoce apresentadas aqui são iniciativas importantes em lidar com a estimulação precoce em crianças com diferentes fatores de risco e/ou deficiências e produzir conhecimentos no contexto brasileiro. / CAPES: 23211504