Do Spirituality and Faith Make a Difference? Report from the Southern European Psycho-Oncology Study Group

OBJECTIVE: In the last decade, some attention has been given to spirituality and faith and their role in cancer patients' coping. Few data are available about spirituality among cancer patients in Southern European countries, which have a big tradition of spirituality, namely, the Catholic religion. As part of a more general investigation (Southern European Psycho-Oncology Study--SEPOS), the aim of this study was to examine the effect of spirituality in molding psychosocial implications in Southern European cancer patients. METHOD: A convenience sample of 323 outpatients with a diagnosis of cancer between 6 to 18 months, a good performance status (Karnofsky Performance Status > 80), and no cognitive deficits or central nervous system (CNS) involvement by disease were approached in university and affiliated cancer centers in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland (Italian speaking area). Each patient was evaluated for spirituality (Visual Analog Scale 0-10), psychological morbidity (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale--HADS), coping strategies (Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer--Mini-MAC) and concerns about illness (Cancer Worries Inventory--CWI). RESULTS. The majority of patients (79.3%) referred to being supported by their spirituality/faith throughout their illness. Significant differences were found between the spirituality and non-spirituality groups (p ≤ 0.01) in terms of education, coping styles, and psychological morbidity. Spirituality was significantly correlated with fighting spirit (r = -0.27), fatalism (r = 0.50), and avoidance (r = 0.23) coping styles and negatively correlated with education (r = -0.25), depression (r = -0.22) and HAD total (r = -0.17). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Spirituality is frequent among Southern European cancer patients with lower education and seems to play some protective role towards psychological morbidity, specifically depression. Further studies should examine this trend in Southern European cancer patients.

Perinatal Bacterial Infection: Screenning of Vertical Transmitted Infections

Perinatal bacterial infection may be caused by any microorganism colonizing the vaginal tract. Neonatologists and paediatricians are especially concerned about group B Stretpococcus (GBS). However, Enterobactereacea, mainly E.coli and Proteus, are also responsible for infection. GBS screening may be accomplished in over 90% of pregnant women. In our maternity in 2007-2008, 85% of the mothers had been screened. Screening and prophylaxis were responsible for a decreasing incidence of neonatal infection - from 0.6/1000 to 0.15/1000 live births in Portugal, from 2002 to 2007. However there are some difficulties related to screening. In the second Portuguese study 16/57 NB with early-onset infection (28%) were born to “negative” mothers. Several factors illustrate how difficult is to draw national screening policies: a wide range of carrier’s state rate throughout a country - in Portugal from 12% to 30%. The success of any screening policy may also be affected by additional technical and organizational problems. In countries where home delivery is a tradition or a trend intrapartum GBS prophylaxis requires a very well organized assistance.. Moreover factors usually accepted as protective are not so effective. In the Portuguese study 24/57 infected newborns (42%) were delivery by caesarean section. Another subject deals with the workload in the postnatal ward generated by deficient compliance to the guidelines a problem not confirm by a study of our group. Decreasing the importance of GBS, highlight the importance of E. coli in perinatal infection. From the 16 340 registrations of the National Registry 1676 were newborns with mother-related infection. Applying the same reasoning to E.coli as to GBS and Listeria monocytogenes – that is considering all of them are of maternal origin - 6.7% of these infections were due to E. coli, 4.6% to SGB and 0.5% to Listeria monocytogenes. In conclusion screening and prophylaxis may be not the best way to prevent all GBS neonatal infections but by now it is the only available procedure. The other bacteria continue to demand a high suspicion level and immediate intervention.