A combination sampling approach for epidemiologic research in humanitarian settings: a case analysis of a study of depressive disorder prevalence among refugees in Greece.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the burden of common mental health disorders, such as depressive disorder, is the first step in strengthening prevention and treatment in humanitarian emergencies. However, simple random sampling methods may lead to a high risk of coercion in settings characterized by a lack of distinction between researchers and aid organizations, mistrust, privacy concerns, and the overarching power differential between researchers and populations affected by crises. This case analysis describes a sampling approach developed for a survey study of depressive disorder in a Syrian refugee camp in Greece (n = 135). DISCUSSION: Syrian refugees face an extraordinarily high burden of depressive disorder during the asylum process (43%), necessitating population screening, prevention, and treatment. In order to preserve the informed consent process in this refugee camp setting, the research team developed a two-phase sampling strategy using a map depicting the geographical layout of the housing units within the camp. In the first phase, camp management announced a research study was being undertaken and individuals were invited to volunteer to participate. The participants' container (housing) numbers were recorded on the map, but were not linked to the survey data. Then, in the second phase, the camp map was used for complementary sampling to reach a sample sufficient for statistical analysis. As a result of the two phases of the sampling exercise, all eligible adults from half the containers in each block were recruited, producing a systematic, age- and sex-representative sample. CONCLUSIONS: Combining sampling procedures in humanitarian emergencies can reduce the risk of coerced consent and bias by allowing participants to approach researchers in the first phase, with a second phase of sampling conducted to recruit a systematic sample. This case analysis illuminates the feasibility of a two-phase sampling approach for drawing a quasi-random, representative sample in a refugee camp setting.

Anterograde colonic irrigations by percutaneous endoscopic caecostomy in refractory colorectal functional disorders.

PURPOSE: In case reports or small studies, percutaneous endoscopic caecostomy (PEC) has been proposed as an alternative to the Malone intervention to perform antegrade colonic enemas. Our goal was to assess the feasibility, efficacy, and tolerance of PEC in a large group of patients with refractory colorectal functional disorders. METHODS: From September 2006 to April 2014, all patients undergoing PEC for constipation, fecal incontinence, and incontinence after rectal resection in two expert centers were studied. The PEC procedure consisted in anchoring the caecum to the abdominal wall (caecopexy) and placing a specifically designed tube in the colonic lumen to perform antegrade enemas. The quality of life (GIQLI), constipation (Kess), and incontinence (Cleveland) scores were assessed before PEC and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients were included. GIQLI scores were significantly improved in constipation group (n = 43), incontinence group (n = 19), and rectal resection group (n = 10). In the constipation group, Kess score decreased from 25.9 before PEC to 20.6 at 2 years (p = 0.01). In the incontinence and post-rectal resection groups, Cleveland scores decreased from 14.3 before PEC to 2.7 at 6 months (p = 0.01) and to 10.4 at 2 years (p = 0.04). Overall, PEC was considered successful by patients in 58%, 74%, and 90% of cases, in constipation, incontinence, and rectal resection groups, respectively. Chronic pain (52%) at the catheter site was the most frequent complication. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous endoscopic caecostomy for antegrade colonic enemas improves significantly the quality of life of patients with colorectal disorder refractory to medical treatment.

Antegrade Enema After Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: The Last Chance to Avoid Definitive Colostomy for Refractory Low Anterior Resection Syndrome and Fecal Incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision and preoperative radiotherapy in mid and low rectal cancer allow us to achieve very good oncological results. However, major and refractory low anterior resection syndrome and fecal incontinence alter the quality of life of patients with a long expected life span. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the functional results of patients treated by antegrade enema for refractory low anterior resection syndrome and fecal incontinence after total mesorectal excision. DESIGN: This is a prospective monocentric study from 2012 to 2016. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy for refractory low anterior resection syndrome and fecal incontinence after total mesorectal excision were prospectively analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the morbidity of the procedure and compared low anterior resection syndrome score, Wexner score, and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index before and after the use of antegrade enema. RESULTS: Of 25 patients treated by antegrade enema over the study period, 6 (24%) had a low anterior resection, 18 (72%) had a coloanal anastomosis, and 1 (4%) had a perineal colostomy. Postoperatively, the rate of local abscess was 8%, all treated by antibiotics. Low anterior resection syndrome score (33 vs 4, p < 0.001), Wexner score (16 vs 4, p <0.001), and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (73 vs 104, p < 0.001) were all significantly improved after antegrade enema. The 2 main symptoms reported by patients were sweating (28%) and local pain (36%). At the end of the follow-up, 16% (n = 4) catheters were removed, and the rate of definitive colostomy was 12% (n = 3). LIMITATIONS: The main limitations of this study are the monocentric features and the sample size. CONCLUSION: Antegrade enema for major and refractory low anterior resection syndrome and fecal incontinence after total mesorectal excision appears to be a promising treatment to avoid definitive colostomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A608.