ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To show the implementation process of IPT-G in primary care, including facilitating and obstructing factors, implementation strategies, and training and supervision of primary care professionals. METHODS Quantitative (cross-sectional and longitudinal) analysis of pre and post-knowledge tests; qualitative analyses of the training courses; patient recruitment; conduction of IPT-G sessions; supervision of IPT-G therapists; application of a semi-structured questionnaire to assess, investigate, and develop strategies against the identified barriers. RESULTS About 120 clinicians answered the pre-test; 84 completed the post-test. Pre- and post-test scores of IPT-G knowledge were significantly different. Twenty initially trained clinicians completed additional supervision in IPT-G. Qualitative analysis identified twelve barriers and six facilitators to IPT-G implementation in individual, organizational, and systemic contexts. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of IPT-G in primary care is a complex process with several steps. In the first step, health professionals were successfully trained in IPT-G. However, subsequent steps were more complex. Therefore, careful planning of IPT-G implementation is essential to maximize the success of this innovation.

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To show the implementation process of IPT-G in primary care, including facilitating and obstructing factors, implementation strategies, and training and supervision of primary care professionals. METHODS Quantitative (cross-sectional and longitudinal) analysis of pre and post-knowledge tests; qualitative analyses of the training courses; patient recruitment; conduction of IPT-G sessions; supervision of IPT-G therapists; application of a semi-structured questionnaire to assess, investigate, and develop strategies against the identified barriers. RESULTS About 120 clinicians answered the pre-test; 84 completed the post-test. Pre- and post-test scores of IPT-G knowledge were significantly different. Twenty initially trained clinicians completed additional supervision in IPT-G. Qualitative analysis identified twelve barriers and six facilitators to IPT-G implementation in individual, organizational, and systemic contexts. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of IPT-G in primary care is a complex process with several steps. In the first step, health professionals were successfully trained in IPT-G. However, subsequent steps were more complex. Therefore, careful planning of IPT-G implementation is essential to maximize the success of this innovation.

OBJETIVO: Realizar uma análise comparativa entre frequência de prematuridade e baixo peso ao nascer entre recém-nascidos de mães adolescentes e adultas, e avaliar dados maternos selecionados. MÉTODOS: Estudo de coorte comparativo, envolvendo 703 gestantes internadas em hospital público da cidade de São Paulo e seus recém-nascidos (270 mães entre 10 e 19 anos e 433 entre 20 e 35 anos), no período de março a agosto de 2003. RESULTADOS: O nascimento de crianças prematuras ou com baixo peso não foi predominante em nenhuma das faixas etárias; pequenas diferenças encontradas não foram estatisticamente significativas. No entanto, foram encontradas diferenças significativas entre os dois grupos etários nos quesitos: número de gestações, predominando maior número de primeiras gestações entre as adolescentes (70,3%) e maior número de segundas ou terceiras entre as adultas (26,9 e 53,3%, respectivamente) e, no pré-natal, predominando menor número de consultas entre as adolescentes e maior entre as adultas (45,1% e 63,3%, respectivamente). CONCLUSÃO: O grupo de gestantes adolescentes, na população estudada, não diferiu do grupo de adultas, quanto à frequência de prematuridade e ao baixo peso ao nascer. Entre as adolescentes, houve significativamente maior número de primíparas, em relação às adultas, e menor número de consultas pré-natais.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a comparative analysis between the frequency of prematurity and low birth weight among newborns of adolescent and adult mothers, and to evaluate selected maternal data. METHODS: A comparative cohort study involving 703 pregnant women and their newborns at a public hospital in the city of São Paulo (270 mothers aged 10-19 years, and 433 aged 20-35 years), during the period from March to August 2003. RESULTS: The birth of premature or low birth weight children was not prominent in any of the age groups; the small differences found were not statistically significant. However, significant differences were found between the two age groups in the items: number of gestations, with a predominance of first pregnancies among adolescents (70.3%), and a greater number of second or third pregnancies among adults (26.9 and 53.3%, respectively); in the prenatal period, fewer clinic visits among adolescents and more visits among adults (45.1% and 63.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The group of pregnant adolescents in the population studied did not differ from the group of adults as to frequency of prematurity and low birth weight. Among adolescents, there was a significantly higher number of primiparous patients compared to adults, and a lower number of prenatal visits.