ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Old age is inevitably associated with general biological and physical decline.Mental health issues are among the most prevalent health problems of the elderly and constitute an important source of distress for patients and caregivers. Primary care providers frequently fail to diagnose these problems, and, even when they do, management may not be optimal. This study aimed to determine the proportion of geriatric mental health morbidity detected by Family Physicians and compare this with General Health Questionnaire detection in the recognition ofmorbidity in this cohort. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional descriptive survey involving 107 elderly respondents, conveniently recruited for the study from the Family Medicine Geriatric Clinic of the University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar. Respondents were grouped into 'cases' and 'non-cases' using a cut-offscore of'3' with the General Health Questionnaire as the main comparative detection instrument. Family Physicians' abilities to identify mental health morbidity were then compared with the General Health Questionnaire ratings. Socio-demographic correlates and identification rates were determined by statistical tests of associations. RESULTS: The General Health Questionnaire identified 48.6% 'cases' while the Family Physicians identified 9.4% among the attendees. Statistically significant differences in socio-demographic characteristics of respondents were found for marital status (chi2 = 21.84; p< 0.009), level of education (chi2 = 42.58; p<0.005) and sex chi2 = (6.98; p<0.008). CONCLUSION: This study concludes that using the General Health Questionnaire and paying attention to geriatrics' socio-demographic parameters can improve the detection of mental health morbidities in the elderlyby Family Physicians.
Subject(s)
Surveys and Questionnaires , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Geriatric Assessment , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nigeria , Physician's Role , Physicians, FamilyABSTRACT
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the difference in detection of attendees with mental health problems visiting the General Out-patient clinic of a tertiary institution; the General Health Questionnaires (GHQ-12) were compared with those identified by the physicians. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred and twenty two (322) subjects aged 18 years and above, attending the clinic for the first time, were recruited for the study by a systematic random sampling method. Using a cut off score of '3' on the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), 'Cases' and 'Non-cases' generated were compared with those identified by the doctors. Identification rates for both groups were calculated and the coefficients determined using a two-by-two contingency table. RESULTS: The GHQ-12 identified 46.6% 'cases' while the General Out-patient Clinic (GOPC) doctors identified 6.8% with a diagnostic sensitivity of 8% and a specificity of 94% CONCLUSION: Despite the high proportion of mental health problems in the GOPC of the hospital, the detection rate by the clinic doctors was low. There is a need for the use of an easy tool like the GHQ-12 for screening and identification of attendees with mental health problems especially in a busy clinic setting.
Subject(s)
Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Physicians, Primary Care , Primary Health Care , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adolescent , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/methods , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Morbidity , Nigeria/epidemiology , Outpatients , Primary Health Care/methods , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , Psychometrics , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and Specificity , Socioeconomic Factors , Translations , Young AdultABSTRACT
Accidental traumatic injuries involving students of the University of Calabar; Nigeria and their neighbouring community were studied. The objectives of this study were to determine the body parts affected and to evaluate the type of injury sustained. The results indicate that most of the injuries were lacerations (open wound) involving the wrist/hand/finger and head; but the severest injuries (fractures and crush injury) were those incurred following assault with the axe. Males were more vulnerable than females in a ratio of 4:1. Committed professional awareness of accidental traumatic injury as a clinical-cum-public health problem; development of institutional/community based injury prevention programmes in requisite settings; and mass casualty coping disposition in health care delivery outfits serving tertiary educational institutions are recommended in the face of increasing youthful restiveness globally
