2017-4

Sarıtürk Ç, et al: Visual Information for Stem Cell Donation Turk J Hematol 2017;34:321-327
Table 1. Characteristics of responder patients at the time of the information.
Sex
Total Group 2 Group 1
n % n % n % p-value
Female 36 43.9 15 35.7 21 52.5 0.182
Male 46 56.1 27 64.3 19 47.5
Marital Status
Married 67 81.7 35 83.3 32 80.0 0.811
Single 12 14.6 6 14.3 6 15.0
Divorced-Widow 3 3.7 1 2.4 2 5.0
Educational Status
Primary School 47 57.3 23 54.8 24 60.0 0.555
Middle School 9 11.0 4 9.5 5 12.5
High School 13 15.9 9 21.4 4 10.0
Academic 13 15.8 6 14.3 7 17.5
Origin of First Diagnosis
Başkent University 41 50.0 20 47.6 21 52.5 0.825
Other 41 50.0 22 52.4 19 47.5
Diagnosis
NHL 18 22.0 11 26.2 7 17.5 0.149
ALL 9 11.0 5 11.9 4 10.0
Multiple myeloma 26 31.7 12 28.6 14 35.0
CML 1 1.2 1 2.4 0 0
Acute Leukemia (de novo) 2 2.4 1 2.4 1 2.5
Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 2 2.4 2 4.8 0 0
Sickle Cell Disease 2 2.4 1 2.4 1 2.5
MDS 3 3.7 1 2.4 2 5,0
tAML 2 2.4 1 2.4 1 2.5
NHL: Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, ALL: acute lymphoblastic leukemia, AML: acute myeloblastic leukemia, CML: chronic myelocytic leukemia, MDS: myelodysplastic syndrome,
tAML: transformed acute myeloblastic leukemia.
The Cronbach’s alpha for participants’ satisfaction with the
patient/donor information session was 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96).
Table 3 shows participants’ satisfaction with the information
session. Satisfaction with the written informed consent,
the informing doctor, and the informational animation was
measured with an overall satisfaction level that was high
(184.8±19.8) compared with the maximum value of 200. There
was no significant difference between groups with regard
to overall satisfaction. However, a statistically significant
difference was found between groups for satisfaction with
the written informed consent form. Patient satisfaction was
greater in group 1 (p=0.039) (Table 3; Figure 1). There were no
significant differences between groups for satisfaction with the
doctor who provided the information and the informational
animation. The level of satisfaction was not affected by sex or
educational status in either group (p>0.05 for all).
Figure 1. Patient satisfaction with the written consent.
CI: Confidence interval.
324