Comparative cross-sectional study on sexual function of couples during pregnancy: Assisted reproductive techniques versus spontaneous conceptions.

This study aims to compare the sexual functions of couples undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART) with those conceiving spontaneously during pregnancy. A total of 102 couples participated in this cross-sectional study, with 68 couples in the spontaneous conception group and 34 couples in the ART group. Data collection was conducted face-to-face in the antenatal clinic using separate "Descriptive Information Form" for women and men, "Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI)" for women, and "Libido Scoring System (LSS)" for men. Descriptive statistical methods, Chi-square and Fisher exact tests, t-test, and Pearson correlation test were used for data analysis. It was observed that the mean FSFI total scores of women who conceived spontaneously and through ART during pregnancy were at a good level (≥30), while the mean LSS scores of their partners were at a moderate level (5-7). No statistically significant distinction existed among the groups. Further research is advisable by adjusting the sample selection criteria, such as gravida, duration of ART treatment, and gestational age.

Cette étude vise à comparer les fonctions sexuelles des couples soumis à des techniques de procréation assistée (ART) avec ceux qui conçoivent spontanément pendant la grossesse. Au total, 102 couples ont participé à cette étude transversale, dont 68 couples dans le groupe conception spontanée et 34 couples dans le groupe ART. La collecte de données a été réalisée en face-à-face dans la clinique prénatale en utilisant un « formulaire d'informations descriptives ¼ distinct pour les femmes et les hommes, un « indice de fonction sexuelle féminine (FSFI) ¼ pour les femmes et un « système de notation de la libido (LSS) ¼ pour les hommes. Des méthodes statistiques descriptives, les tests exacts du chi carré et de Fisher, le test t et le test de corrélation de Pearson ont été utilisés pour l'analyse des données. Il a été observé que les scores totaux moyens FSFI des femmes ayant conçu spontanément et par TAR pendant la grossesse étaient à un bon niveau (≥30), tandis que les scores moyens LSS de leurs partenaires étaient à un niveau modéré (5-7). Aucune distinction statistiquement significative n'existait entre les groupes. Des recherches plus approfondies sont recommandées en ajustant les critères de sélection des échantillons, tels que la gravité, la durée du traitement ART et l'âge gestationnel.

Healthcare workers as parents: attitudes toward vaccinating their children against pandemic influenza A/H1N1.

BACKGROUND: Both the health care workers (HCWs) and children are target groups for pandemic influenza vaccination. The coverage of the target populations is an important determinant for impact of mass vaccination. The objective of this study is to determine the attitudes of HCWs as parents, toward vaccinating their children with pandemic influenza A/H1N1 vaccine. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted with health care workers (HCWs) in a public hospital during December 2009 in Istanbul. All persons employed in the hospital with or without a health-care occupation are accepted as HCW. The HCWs who are parents of children 6 months to 18 years of age were included in the study. Pearson's chi-square test and logistic regression analysis was applied for the statistical analyses. RESULTS: A total of 389 HCWs who were parents of children aged 6 months-18 years participated study. Among all participants 27.0% (n = 105) reported that themselves had been vaccinated against pandemic influenza A/H1N1. Two third (66.1%) of the parents answered that they will not vaccinate their children, 21.1% already vaccinated and 12.9% were still undecided. Concern about side effect was most reported reason among who had been not vaccinated their children and among undecided parents. The second reason for refusing the pandemic vaccine was concerns efficacy of the vaccine. Media was the only source of information about pandemic influenza in nearly one third of HCWs. Agreement with vaccine safety, self receipt of pandemic influenza A/H1N1 vaccine, and trust in Ministry of Health were found to be associated with the positive attitude toward vaccinating their children against pandemic influenza A/H1N1. CONCLUSIONS: Persuading parents to accept a new vaccine seems not be easy even if they are HCWs. In order to overcome the barriers among HCWs related to pandemic vaccines, determination of their misinformation, attitudes and behaviors regarding the pandemic influenza vaccination is necessary. Efforts for orienting the HCWs to use evidence based scientific sources, rather than the media for information should be considered by the authorities.

Vaccination against pandemic influenza A/H1N1 among healthcare workers and reasons for refusing vaccination in Istanbul in last pandemic alert phase.

Coverage of the HCWs as target population is one of the important determinants for the impact of vaccination. To determine the vaccination against the pandemic influenza A/H1N1 among HCWs, we conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey in a public hospital in Istanbul from December 7 to December 22, 2009. Out of total 941 HCWs 718 (76.3%) completed the questionnaires. Nearly one-fourth (23.1%) of the participants were vaccinated against pandemic influenza A/H1N1. Occupation (being a doctor), receiving seasonal influenza vaccine in 2009, agreement with safety of pandemic influenza A/H1N1 vaccine and being comprehend that HCWs have a professional responsibility for getting vaccinated was the strongest independent predictive factor for accepting the pandemic influenza A/H1N1 vaccine (p<.0001). The most frequent reasons for refusing pandemic vaccine were fear of side effects and doubts about vaccine efficacy. Among HCWs 59.6% were recommending pandemic influenza vaccination to a patient even if indicated. In conclusion vaccination against pandemic influenza A/H1N1 is insufficient among HCWs. Misinformed or inadequately informed HCWs are important barrier to pandemic influenza vaccine coverage of the general public also. Educational campaigns concerning HCWs should include evidence based and comprehensible information about possible adverse effects and their incidence besides the advantages of vaccine.

Vaccination coverage and reasons for non-vaccination in a district of Istanbul.

BACKGROUND: In order to control and eliminate the vaccine preventable diseases it is important to know the vaccination coverage and reasons for non-vaccination. The primary objective of this study was to determine the complete vaccination rate; the reasons for non-vaccination and the predictors that influence vaccination of children. The other objective was to determine coverage of measles vaccination of the Measles Immunization Days (MID) 2005 for children aged 9 month to 6 years in a region of Umraniye, Istanbul, Turkey. METHODS: A '30 x 7' cluster sampling design was used as the sampling method. Thirty streets were selected at random from study area. Survey data were collected by a questionnaire which was applied face to face to parents of 221 children. A Chi-square test and logistic regression was used for the statistical analyses. Content analysis method was used to evaluate the open-ended questions. RESULTS: The complete vaccination rate for study population was 84.5% and 3.2% of all children were totally non-vaccinated. The siblings of non-vaccinated children were also non-vaccinated. Reasons for non-vaccination were as follows: being in the village and couldn't reach to health care services; having no knowledge about vaccination; the father of child didn't allow vaccination; intercurrent illness of child during vaccination time; missed opportunities like not to shave off a vial for only one child. In logistic regression analysis, paternal and maternal levels of education and immigration time of both parents to Istanbul were found to influence whether children were completely vaccinated or non-vaccinated. Measles vaccination coverage during MID was 79.3%. CONCLUSION: Efforts to increase vaccination coverage should take reasons for non-vaccination into account.