Assesssing an unmet healthcare demand: A survey of immunisation among homecare patients and their caregivers.

Susceptibility of the homecare patient to vaccine preventable infections and their complications is high. Hospitalization of this patient group increases costs to the healthcare system. Therefore vaccination services are of great importance for protecting these patients from complications and hospitalization. We aimed to determine vaccination status of the patients receiving home care services from a tertiary hospital in Turkey and to reveal their vaccination needs. This cross sectional study was carried out in the Division of Home Care Services of Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital in Ankara Turkey. A questionnaire Comprised of 15 questions were administered through face to face with 336 patients and their care givers. The data obtained was analyzed with descriptive statistical methods and chi-squared test was used for comparison of proportions. A total of 86.3% of the patients and 22.6% of the caregivers were older than age 65. Approximately 45% of the patients were receiving home care due to primary neurological diagnosis such as Dementia, Parkinson's disease and Cerebrovascular Accident. In addition, 78% of the patients had at least 1 additional diagnosis other than their primary diagnosis. Although immunization indications were present among all patients included in the study and at least 22% of the care providers, only 15.2% of patients and 11.3% of care providers had been recommended to receive vaccination. Among those who had been recommended to get vaccinated, 74% of patients and 77% of care givers had been administered the recommended vaccine. This finding implied that both groups were responsive to the advice for vaccination. Moreover, since the patients receiving home care are already followed-up by a healthcare team, thus these patients can be vaccinated with very little additional logistic support.

Symptoms of Turkish patients with depression in Ankara and Berlin.

Numerous studies have investigated the potential impact of migration on psychiatric morbidity levels. Relatively little research has studied how the symptom profiles of patients with similar disorders and similar backgrounds are linked to the culture in which they live. Such research requires comparisons of immigrant patient samples with samples of patient who remain in their country of origin. In this study we compared symptoms in Turkish patients with depression living in Ankara, Turkey, and Berlin, Germany. To understand symptoms of patients with depression, not only the culture of origin but also the cultural context in which patients have been living needs to be considered as an important factor. The new culture can be associated with distinct, and not necessarily more serious, symptom profiles.

The validity and test-retest reliability of the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life scale in Turkish patients.

The aim of the study was to translate and test the reliability and validity of the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Scale (LMSQoL) in Turkish patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Demographic data of MS patients who had a registration in and followed up by a university hospital were recorded. The LMSQoL and Turkish Quality of Life questionnaire were applied to the patients. The internal consistency of the scales was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The validity of LMSQoL was examined by using correlation between the total scores of LMSQoL and Turkish Quality of Life questionnaire. Test-retest reliability was examined by using the correlation for the first and second applications of LMSQoL. Sixty-nine MS patients, (40.6% male, 59.4% female) were enrolled in the study. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was found as 0.67 for the three positive items of LMSQoL. For the five negative items, Cronbach's alpha was found as 0.78. The correlation coefficient between the total scores of the scales was 0.80 (P<0.001). The Turkish version of the LMSQoL is a reliable and valid instrument and can be effectively used for measuring the impact of MS on the QoL.

Mirtazapine improves sleep and lowers anxiety and depression in cancer patients: superiority over imipramine.

GOALS OF THE WORK: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of mirtazapine and imipramine on not only the distressing symptoms of cancer patients such as pain, nausea, vomiting, appetite loss, and sleep disturbances but also depressive and anxiety symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients with cancer who were diagnosed with major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, or adjustment disorder were included. Twenty patients on mirtazapine, 13 patients on imipramine, and 20 patients in the control group without medication were interviewed during three visits (baseline, third week, and sixth week). Pain, nausea, vomiting, appetite loss, and sleep disturbances were evaluated with self-assessment single-symptom scales during each visit. The patients were also asked to complete the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) during each visit. MAIN RESULTS: There were no significant differences among the three visits in the mirtazapine, imipramine, or control groups in terms of pain, nausea, vomiting, or appetite loss. For the initial, middle, and late insomnia, only the mirtazapine group showed improvements (p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.003). There were also significant differences in the mean total (p = 0.03), anxiety (p = 0.003), and depression (p = 0.025) scores of HADS among the three visits for patients taking mirtazapine. There were no significant differences for HADS scores from the baseline to the end point for patients taking imipramine or control group patients. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that mirtazapine is effective for resolving insomnia as well as anxiety and depressive symptoms in cancer patients. However, more systematic research, such as placebo-controlled studies, is needed.

Psychiatric morbidity and its screening in Turkish women with breast cancer: a comparison between the HADS and SCID tests.

OBJECTIVE: Adjustment disorders (ADs) and major depressive disorder (MDD) are often the most prevalent psychiatric disorders among cancer patients. This study's objective was to determine the overall performance of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) as a screening instrument in identifying cases of psychiatric morbidity such as ADs and MDD. METHODS: Two hundred and four consecutive patients completed a questionnaire including a demographic and clinical data form, HADS, and were examined with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). The screening performance of HADS was investigated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC), rates of specificity, and sensitivity. RESULTS: For MDD; the AUC was 0.77 on the HADS total, the AUC was 0.79 on the HADS depression subscale, and was 0.72 on the anxiety subscale. For ADs; the results were 0.74, 0.74, and 0.70 respectively. Findings indicated that a HADS total cut-off score of > or =17 to be optimal in identifying cases of MDD. This cut-off score offered a sensitivity of 0.70 and a specificity of 0.80. Findings suggested that a HADS total cut-off score of 10 was the optimal combination of sensitivity (0.84) and specificity (0.55) for ADs. When compared with SCID, the percentage of cases identified by HADS was 28% for MDD and 22% for ADs. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SCID, HADS was found to have acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity in detecting psychiatric morbidity especially for MDD and HADS can be recommended with reservations as a screening tool for breast cancer patients.

Psychometric study of Turkish version of Fatigue Impact Scale in multiple sclerosis patients.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to test the validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency of Turkish version of FIS; the variables affecting FIS score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 71 MS patients and 68 healthy subjects were included to the study. RESULTS: Total FIS score and subscale scores were different statistically between MS patients and healthy volunteers in both first and second FIS applications (p<0.001). These results showed that FIS is validated in divergent direction. BDI score was higher in MS patients than healthy volunteers (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between two study groups for cognitive subscale scores, after the effect of depression was eliminated (p>0.05). To assess the test-retest reliability, the scores of two FIS applications did not differ statistically (cognitive t=1.948 p>0.05, physical t=1.420 p=0.160, social t=1.470 p=0.146, total t=1.990 p=0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.89 (99% confidence interval: 0.79-0.94) for cognitive, 0.95 (0.91-0.97) for physical, 0.91 (0.83-0.95) for social, and 0.93 (0.86-0.96) for total FIS scores (p<0.001). EDSS correlated with physical subscores in both applications of FIS. CONCLUSION: Turkish version of FIS, which is valid and reliable, seems an appropriate tool for the assessment of the effects of fatigue in Turkish MS population.

The validity and reliability of the Fatigue Severity Scale in Turkish multiple sclerosis patients.

The aims of this study were to investigate the Fatigue Severity Scale's Turkish version's validity, reproducibility, internal consistency and parameters. Multiple sclerosis patients' disability levels were determined by the Expended Disability Status Scale and depression status was established with the Beck Depression Inventory. The Fatigue Severity Scale and Beck Depression Inventory were administered through self-report methods and assistance, without guidance, given where needed. An interval of 1 week was allowed between the applications. Seventy-two definitely diagnosed multiple sclerosis patients and matched 76 healthy controls were included. The multiple sclerosis patients' median Expended Disability Status Scale score was 4.0 (1.0-9.5). There were statistically significant differences between multiple sclerosis patients' and healthy controls' Fatigue Severity Scale scores (P<0.001). After controlling for depression, Fatigue Severity Scale scores were lowered, but there was still a significant difference between them (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the interviews for Fatigue Severity Scale1 and Fatigue Severity Scale2 (P=0.719). Internal consistency for Fatigue Severity Scale was good for multiple sclerosis patients (ICC=0.81, P<0.001). Cronbach's alpha of Fatigue Severity Scale1 was 0.89; Fatigue Severity Scale2 was 0.94. Expended Disability Status Scale scores (P<0.05) and Beck Depression Inventory scores (P<0.001) have a significant effect on the Fatigue Severity Scale. In conclusion, scales have a great importance in following up and assessing the results of treatment strategies. The Turkish validation of the Fatigue Severity Scale is reliable and valid, and is an appropriate tool to assess fatigue in the Turkish multiple sclerosis population.