Frequency of depressive symptoms in Syrian refugees and Turkish maintenance hemodialysis patients during COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Introduction Pneumonia of unknown cause was detected on 30 December 2019 in China. It was categorized as an outbreak and named as COVID-19 by the World Health Organization. The pandemic affects all people, but patient groups such as hemodialysis (HD) patients have been particularly affected. We do not know if refugees suffered more during the outbreak. In this study, we compared depressive symptom frequency between Syrian refugee HD patients and Turkish ones. Methods The study had a single-center, cross-sectional design. Demographic and clinical data were collected retrospectively from patients’ files containing details about past medical history, demographic variables and laboratory values. Validated Turkish and Arabic forms of Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) were used to assess depressive symptoms. BDI scores were compared according to nationality, demographic features and clinical data. A BDI score more than 14 was accepted as suspicion of depression. Results 119 patients were enrolled in the study. After the exclusion of 22 patients, 75 Turkish and 22 Syrian patients were included for further analysis. The median BDI (interquartile range) score for Turkish and Syrian patients were 12 (7–23) and 19.5 (12.7–25.2), respectively (p = 0.03). Suspicion of depression was present at 42.7% of Turkish, and 72.7% of Syrian HD patients (p = 0.013). Regarding all patients, phosphorus level, Kt/V, and nationality were significantly different between patients with and without suspicion of depression (p = 0.023, 0.039, 0.013, respectively). Conclusion Syrian patients had higher BDI scores and more depressive symptoms than Turkish patients. Additional national measures for better integration and more mental support to Syrian HD patients are needed.

Evaluation of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Case Mixed Index of Hospitals: A Descriptive Study

“…Literatürde yer alan diğer çalışmalar genel olarak salgınlar ve COVID-19 pandemisi döneminde pandemi dışındaki sağlık hizmetleri sunumunun azaldığını göstermektedir. [17][18][19][20]23,24,[27][28][29][30] Bununla birlikte, literatürde yer alan çalışmalarda, pandemi hastaları dâhil edildiğinde hizmet sunumundaki azalış değerlendirilememiştir. Birçok hastanede, diğer sağlık hizmetleri sunumundaki azalışın pandemi hastalarının yatışı ile telafi edilebileceğini düşünmek mümkündür.…”

Screening of depression in chronic kidney disease patients undergoing haemodialysis.

“…Almost 60% of these patients were male, and a vast majority (84%) had a poor socioeconomic background 23 . Another study that was done during the COVID-19 pandemic reported that 42.7% of Turkish and 72.7% of the Syrian population is suffering from depression 24 . Another study reported 68% depressive symptoms among dialysis patients 25 .…”

Mental health outcomes in Syrian refugees: A systematic review

“…Forty-two studies focused on major depressive disorder or depressive symptoms (Acarturk et al, 2018, 2021; Ahmad et al, 2021; Böge et al, 2020; Borho et al, 2020; Braun-Lewensohn et al, 2019; Cheung Chung et al, 2018; Chung & Shakra, 2022; Chung et al, 2017, 2021; Chung, AlQarni et al, 2018; Chung, Shakra et al, 2018; Demir et al, 2020; Euteneuer & Schäfer, 2018; Fuhr et al, 2019; Gammouh et al, 2015; Georgiadou et al, 2018, 2020; Javanbakht et al, 2019; Mahmood et al, 2019; Marwa, 2016; McGrath et al, 2020; Mohammad et al, 2018; M’zah et al, 2019; Naal et al, 2021; Naja et al, 2016; Oda et al, 2021; Okenwa-Emegwa et al, 2019; Poole et al, 2018; Rizkalla & Segal, 2018, 2019; Röhr et al, 2020; Schlechter et al, 2021; Sengoelge et al, 2019; Sevinc et al, 2021; Sim et al, 2018; Stevenson et al, 2019; Tekeli-Yesil et al, 2018; Tinghög et al, 2017; Uygun, 2021; Woltin et al, 2018; Yalim, 2021). The most used instrument was the Hopkins Symptom Checklist 25-items (HSCL-25), and the prevalence of positive screening results ranged from 34.7% to 59.4%.…”

“…Most of the studies took place in non-camp settings, followed by studies in refugee camps or in both settings. Sixteen studies were comparative between refugee populations in different settings or refugees and local populations in the same setting (Alduraidi et al, 2020; Basheti et al, 2015; Böge et al, 2020; Cheung Chung et al, 2018; Chung et al, 2021; Chung, AlQarni et al, 2018; Demir et al, 2020; Khamis, 2022; Powell et al, 2020; Saab et al, 2020; Schlechter et al, 2021; Sevinc et al, 2021; Stevenson et al, 2019; Tekeli-Yesil et al, 2018; Woltin et al, 2018; Yalim, 2021).…”