Differences between German and Turkish-speaking participants in a chronic heart failure management program

German and Turkish-speaking patients were recruited for a chronic heart failure management program. So far little is known about the special needs and characteristics of Turkish-speaking patients with chronic heart failure; therefore, the aim of this study was to examine sociodemographic and illness-related differences between German and Turkish-speaking patients with chronic heart failure. German and Turkish-speaking patients suffering from chronic heart failure and insured with the AOK Rheinland/Hamburg or the BARMER GEK health insurance companies and living in Cologne, Germany, were enrolled. Recruitment took place in hospitals, private practices and at information events. Components of the program were coordination of a guideline-oriented medical care, telemonitoring (e.g., blood pressure, electrocardiogram, and weight), a 24-h information hotline, attendance by German and Turkish-speaking nurses and a patient education program. Data were collected by standardized interviews in German or Turkish language. Data were analyzed with descriptive measures and tested for significance differences using Pearson's chi(2)-test and the taEurotest. A total of 465 patients (average age 71 years, 55 % male and 33 % Turkish-speaking) were enrolled in the care program during the study period. Significant differences between German and Turkish-speaking patients were found for age, education, employment status, comorbidities, risk perception, knowledge on heart failure and fear of loss of independence. The response rate could be achieved with the help of specific measures for patient enrollment by Turkish-speaking integration nurses. The differences between German and Turkish-speaking patients should in future be taken into account in the care of people with chronic heart failure

Psychosocial Information Requirements for Multimorbid Breast Cancer Patients in Breast Centres in North Rhine Westphalia

Introduction: The importance of breast cancer patients (BPs) being supplied with sufficient information is well known. This study investigated the unfulfilled psychosocial information requirements of multimorbid BPs. Methods: This study records the unfulfilled psychosocial information requirements of 4166 patients, who were treated at one of the fifty breast centres in North Rhine Westphalia. The Cologne patient questionnaire for breast cancer 2.0 included in the postal survey following hospital stays records the information requirements using an adapted version of the Cancer patient information needs scale. Through a univariate analysis using the chi(2) test, it was investigated whether multimorbid BPs had significantly different psychosocial information requirements than BPs without further concomitant illnesses. Results: In general, it transpired that BPs had relatively low unfulfilled information requirements regarding work (20.7%), everyday life (26.8%), illness (27.4%) and treatment (35.7%), though such requirements were higher when it came to health-related behaviour (54.2%). Multimorbid BPs had significantly lower unfulfilled information requirements regarding work and significantly larger ones regarding treatment in comparison to BPs without concomitant illnesses. Renal diseases and concomitant mental illnesses were associated with particularly high information requirements (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The results of our study should clarify the complexity and heterogeneity of information requirements of breast cancer patients in oncological care and should help to design the supply of information to be more patient-oriented