Julio Souza

Background: According to the World Health Organization, education and awareness are essential components of public health promotion strategies. In the context of rare diseases (RDs), these actions are particularly critical because of persistent stigma, fragmented knowledge, and the frequent absence of consolidated clinical and organizational protocols. These gaps often result in inappropriate referrals, inefficient care pathways, unnecessary procedures, and delays in diagnosis, negatively affecting health outcomes and quality of life. Objective: This study aimed to identify and systematize the main recommendations for health education and awareness in the field of RDs, supporting the development of health care programs, public policies, and strategic initiatives. Methods: We formulated the research question using the Population, Concept, and Context framework. This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines to ensure methodological transparency. Eligible records included peer-reviewed research articles of any design and official documents published in Portuguese, English, or Spanish, with no time restrictions. Records that did not address the research question, lacked sufficient rigor, or focused exclusively on specific subgroups of RDs were excluded. Searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, as well as gray literature. Study selection and data extraction were conducted by the research team, with disagreements resolved and the included sources reviewed by an RDs expert. Data were thematically categorized by consensus, and descriptive statistics were used to summarize findings. Results: A total of 58 sources of evidence were included. Among the identified recommendations related to education and awareness, most sources focused on professional education and training (49/58, 84.4%), followed by public policies and intersectoral integration (36/58, 62%), education and awareness for the general population (28/58, 48.2%), digital technologies (27/58, 46.5%), emotional support and experience sharing (20/58, 34.4%), and awareness events and dates (8/58, 13.7%). Percentages exceed 100% because individual sources could report multiple recommendations. Overall, the literature emphasizes integrating RDs content into educational initiatives and strengthening professional competencies, intersectoral collaboration, digital technologies, and broader awareness strategies. Conclusions: This scoping review systematically mapped and organized recommendations from diverse sources of evidence on strategies for health education and awareness related to RDs. It synthesizes heterogeneous evidence using a structured approach to provide a comprehensive overview of strategies in this field, consolidating dispersed knowledge into a coherent body of evidence. The findings may inform improvements in health services, as well as professional and managerial practices, and initiatives aimed at supporting patients, families, and advocacy groups involved in RDs, with potential implications for strengthening diagnostic processes, referral coordination, and more equitable access to information and care.

Objective: This systematic review investigates the application of wearable technologies for remote health monitoring, with a particular focus on their effectiveness in improving patient care and the current state of technological integration. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology, a comprehensive search was conducted for studies published between 2020 and 2025. A total of 55 studies were selected, and data were extracted regarding study design, wearable types, feedback mechanisms, and analytical approaches. Results: The analysis reveals a significant reliance on traditional statistical methods, with limited integration of advanced artificial intelligence techniques despite their potential to improve predictive capabilities. The review emphasizes the importance of personalized feedback mechanisms in promoting patient engagement and adherence. Furthermore, a notable gap was identified in research addressing cognitive and psychological well-being compared to physical health monitoring. Conclusion: The findings highlight the need for more rigorous methodologies, including scientific clinical trials, to strengthen the evidence base. Future work should prioritize the integration of machine learning and adopt a more holistic approach to provide a comprehensive understanding of the state-of-the-art and inform future research directions.

Purpose To analyze the association between the negative impact of work on physical and mental health perceived by Brazilian and Portuguese teachers and its relationship with sociodemographic and work-related factors.

O Escritório Editorial da Revista Técnico-Científica CEJAM (RTCC) tem a honra e a satisfação de tornar pública a nominata de revisores que realizaram avaliações por pares em 2025. Este registro constitui não apenas um reconhecimento formal, mas também um tributo ao trabalho silencioso, rigoroso e essencial desempenhado por cientistas que, de forma voluntária e ética, contribuem para o fortalecimento da produção científica nacional. A revisão por pares, prática consolidada há mais de três séculos, representa um dos pilares mais robustos da comunicação científica. Trata-se de um processo de arbitragem colaborativa, conduzido de maneira duplo-cega, cujo objetivo central é assegurar que os conteúdos intelectuais submetidos apresentem qualidade metodológica, precisão conceitual, rigor ético e relevância acadêmica. Ao preservar a integridade das publicações, a revisão por pares garante que o conhecimento divulgado aos leitores seja confiável, replicável e socialmente significativo. Os revisores, enquanto especialistas em suas respectivas áreas, desempenham papel de destaque nesse processo. São profissionais que, apesar das múltiplas demandas de suas rotinas acadêmicas e assistenciais, dispõem de tempo, atenção e expertise para avaliar cuidadosamente cada manuscrito recebido. Sua atuação não se limita à aceitação ou rejeição de artigos: ela envolve orientar autores, sugerir melhorias, indicar caminhos metodológicos mais robustos e, sobretudo, fomentar a cultura científica baseada em evidências. Trata-se, portanto, de um trabalho voluntário, silencioso e altamente qualificado, que presta inestimável serviço à comunidade científica e à sociedade. Ao longo de 2025, cada parecer emitido contribuiu não apenas para o aprimoramento dos textos publicados, mas também para o fortalecimento institucional da RTCC, que se empenha em manter-se alinhada às melhores práticas editoriais internacionais. A dedicação desses revisores reflete o compromisso coletivo com a ciência aberta, com a responsabilidade ética na comunicação de resultados e com a disseminação de conhecimento que apoie decisões clínicas, políticas públicas e avanços no campo da saúde. Certos de que a avaliação por pares constitui elemento fundamental para a manutenção da qualidade e da credibilidade das publicações científicas, manifestamos nossos mais sinceros agradecimentos a todos os profissionais que colaboraram conosco neste ano. Reconhecemos que, sem esse corpo de revisores comprometidos, seria impossível alcançar o padrão de excelência que almejamos e que orienta o trabalho editorial da RTCC. A equipe editorial reafirma sua gratidão pelas contribuições valiosas oferecidas aos autores, aos leitores, à comunidade acadêmica e à sociedade. Na expectativa de manter essa parceria frutífera, esperamos continuar contando com vossos prestigiosos préstimos ao longo de 2026.

BACKGROUND According to the World Health Organization, education and awareness are essential components of public health promotion strategies. In the context of rare diseases (RDs), these actions are particularly critical because of persistent stigma, fragmented knowledge, and the frequent absence of consolidated clinical and organizational protocols. These gaps often result in inappropriate referrals, inefficient care pathways, unnecessary procedures, and delays in diagnosis, negatively affecting health outcomes and quality of life. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to identify and systematize the main recommendations for health education and awareness in the field of RDs, supporting the development of health care programs, public policies, and strategic initiatives. METHODS We formulated the research question using the Population, Concept, and Context framework. This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines to ensure methodological transparency. Eligible records included peer-reviewed research articles of any design and official documents published in Portuguese, English, or Spanish, with no time restrictions. Records that did not address the research question, lacked sufficient rigor, or focused exclusively on specific subgroups of RDs were excluded. Searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, as well as gray literature. Study selection and data extraction were conducted by the research team, with disagreements resolved and the included sources reviewed by an RDs expert. Data were thematically categorized by consensus, and descriptive statistics were used to summarize findings. RESULTS A total of 58 sources of evidence were included. Among the identified recommendations related to education and awareness, most sources focused on professional education and training (49/58, 84.4%), followed by public policies and intersectoral integration (36/58, 62%), education and awareness for the general population (28/58, 48.2%), digital technologies (27/58, 46.5%), emotional support and experience sharing (20/58, 34.4%), and awareness events and dates (8/58, 13.7%). Percentages exceed 100% because individual sources could report multiple recommendations. Overall, the literature emphasizes integrating RDs content into educational initiatives and strengthening professional competencies, intersectoral collaboration, digital technologies, and broader awareness strategies. CONCLUSIONS This scoping review systematically mapped and organized recommendations from diverse sources of evidence on strategies for health education and awareness related to RDs. It synthesizes heterogeneous evidence using a structured approach to provide a comprehensive overview of strategies in this field, consolidating dispersed knowledge into a coherent body of evidence. The findings may inform improvements in health services, as well as professional and managerial practices, and initiatives aimed at supporting patients, families, and advocacy groups involved in RDs, with potential implications for strengthening diagnostic processes, referral coordination, and more equitable access to information and care.