Relationship Between Perceived Chronic Disease Care and Quality of Life Among Migrants

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to examine the relationship between migrants’ evaluations of chronic disease care and their quality of life levels. Methods: This cross-sectional study included a sample of 129 Syrian migrant individuals. Data were collected in Mersin between October-December 2025 using the snowball sampling method. The corresponding data collection instruments used in the study were the “Sociodemographic Information Form (SIF)”, “Chronic Illness Care Assessment Scale (CICAS)”, and the “Quality of Life Scale (QoLS)”. In the analysis of the data, descriptive statistics, Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis test, independent samples t-test, one-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni post hoc test, as well as and Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation analyses were used. Results: The participants' mean total score on the CICAS was 76.91 ± 8.25 (mean item score: 3.85 ± 1.84), whereas the mean total score on the QoLS was 87.61 ± 8.31 (mean item score: 3.25 ± 1.60). According to the Spearman correlation analysis, no significant relationship was found between the CICAS and QoLS (rspearman=0.043; p>0.05). In addition, the correlation analysis revealed that age was not significantly associated with the CICAS, while it showed a low but statistically significant negative correlation with the QoLS. On the other hand, the regression analysis demonstrated that the CICAS was not a significant predictor of the QoLS (p>0.05). Conclusion: The findings indicated that migrant individuals demonstrated moderate-to-high levels of both chronic illness care assessment and quality of life. Patient participation emerged as the highest-scoring dimension, while the follow-up/coordination dimension constituted the weakest score. Moreover, these outcomes exhibited significant variation across sociodemographic and health-related characteristic.

Keywords

• Migrant
• migrant health
• Syrian
• chronic diseases
• quality of life

Supporting Institution

This research was supported by TÜBİTAK through the 2209-A University Students Research Projects Support Program.

Project Number

1919B012404491

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Mersin University Rectorate Clinical Research Ethics Committee (date: December 11, 2024; approval number: 2024/1222).

Thanks

We would like to express our gratitude to TÜBİTAK for their support of this research through the 2209-A University Students Research Projects Support Program.

Göçmenlerin Kronik Hastalıklarına Yönelik Bakımı Değerlendirme Durumları ile Yaşam Kalitesi Arasındaki İlişki

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada göçmen bireylerin kronik hastalık bakımına ilişkin değerlendirmeleri ile yaşam kalitesi düzeylerini incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Kesitsel tipte bu çalışmamın örneklemini 129 göçmen Suriyeli birey oluşturmuştur. Veriler, Ekim-Aralık 2025 tarihleri arasında Mersin’de kartopu yöntemiyle yapılmıştır. Veriler, “Birey Tanıtım Formu”, “Kronik Hastalık Bakımını Değerlendirme Ölçeği (KHBDÖ)” ve “Yaşam Kalitesi Ölçeği (YKÖ)” uygulanarak toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde tanımlayıcı istatistikler, Mann-Whitney U testi, Kruskal-Wallis testi, bağımsız örneklem t testi, ANOVA testi ve Bonferroni post-hoc testi ile birlikte Pearson ve Spearman korelasyonu kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Katılımcıların KHBDÖ toplam puan ortalaması 76,91±8,25 (ortalama madde puanı: 3,85±1,84), YKÖ toplam puan ortalaması ise 87,61±8,31 (ortalama madde puanı: 3,25±1,60) olarak bulunmuştur. Spearman korelasyon analizine göre KHBDÖ ile YKÖ arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmamıştır (rsperman=0.043; p>0.05). Korelasyon analizleri, yaşın KHBDÖ ile anlamlı ilişki göstermediğini; YKÖ ile negatif yönlü düşük düzeyde anlamlı ilişki sergilediğini ortaya koymuştur. Regresyon analizi, KHBDÖ’nün YKÖ üzerinde anlamlı bir yordayıcı olmadığını göstermiştir (p>0.05). Sonuç: Göçmen bireylerde kronik hastalık bakım değerlendirmesi ve yaşam kalitesi düzeyleri orta-üst seviyede bulunmuş; en yüksek puan hasta katılımında, en düşük puan ise izlem/koordinasyon boyutunda saptanmış olup, bu düzeylerin sosyodemografik ve sağlıkla ilişkili değişkenlere göre farklılık gösterdiği belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Göçmen
• göçmen sağlığı
• Suriyeli
• kronik hastalıklar
• yaşam kalitesi

Supporting Institution

Bu araştırma, TÜBİTAK tarafından 2209-A Üniversite Öğrenci Araştırma Projeleri Destek Programı aracılığıyla desteklenmiştir.

Project Number

1919B012404491

Ethical Statement

Çalışma için etik onay Mersin Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü Klinik Araştırma Etik Kurulu'ndan alınmıştır (tarih: 11 Aralık 2024; onay numarası: 2024/1222).

Thanks

Bu araştırmaya 2209-A Üniversite Öğrenci Araştırma Projeleri Destek Programı aracılığıyla verdikleri destekten dolayı TÜBİTAK'a teşekkürlerimizi sunmak isteriz.

References

1. 1. Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Türkiye. Avaible date: 21.07.2026. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/tr/en/kime-yardim-ediyoruz/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-tuerkiye.
2. 2. Refugees Association. 2025. Number of Syrians in Turkey. Avaible date: 18.03.2026. Avaible from: https://multeciler.org.tr/turkiyedeki-suriyeli-sayisi
3. 3. Yilmaz FK, Ergül S. Health Policy Analysis: Syrian Refugees in the Extent of Immigrant Health. Sağlık ve Sosyal Refah Araştırmaları Dergisi 2021;3(2):119-128.
4. 4. Güner AE, et al. Health Offered at Immigrant Health Centers in Istanbul Evaluation of Services. Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 2022;16(2):321-329. doi.org/10.21763/tjfmpc.1015852
5. 5. Altıparmak YD, Akman M. Chronic Disease Prevalence and Utilization of Health Services in Syrian Refugees Living in Şanlıurfa. Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 2023;17(1):150-156. doi.org/10.21763/tjfmpc.1170349
6. 6. Mipatrini D, et al. Survey on the health status, services utilization and determinants of health: Syrian refugee population in Turkey: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2019.
7. 7. Balcilar M. Health Status Survey of Syrian Refugees in Turkey: Non-communicable Disease Risk Factors Surveillance Among Syrian Refugees Living in Turkey: Ministry of Health: Ankara: Turkey, 2016.
8. 8. Alawa J, Zarei P, Khoshnood K. Evaluating the provision of health services and barriers to treatment for chronic diseases among Syrian refugees in Turkey: a review of literature and stakeholder interviews. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2019;16(15):2660. doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152660

9. 9. Hahn K, et al. Quality of health care for refugees–a systematic review. BMC International Health and Human Rights 2019;19(1):20. doi.org/10.1186/s12914-019-0205-7
10. 10. Gagliardi J, Brettschneider C, König H-H. Health-related quality of life of refugees: a systematic review of studies using the WHOQOL-Bref instrument in general and clinical refugee populations in the community setting. Conflict and Health 2021;15(1):44. doi.org/10.1186/s13031-021-00378-1
11. 11. Mozaffarian D. Dietary and policy priorities for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity: a comprehensive review. Circulation 2016;133(2):187-225. doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018585
12. 12. Gülseven B OS. Chronic Conditions. 3 ed. Ankara: Akademisyen Tıp Kitabevi; 2014.
13. 13. Acaray A, Pınar R. The Evaluation of the Quality of Life in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients. CÜ Hemşirelik Yüksek Okulu Dergisi 2004;8(1):1-11.
14. 14. Kumsar AK, Yılmaz FT. Overview of quality of life in chronic disease patients. ERÜ Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi 2014;2(2):62-70.
15. 15. Parker C, Scott S, Geddes A. Snowball sampling. SAGE research methods foundations. 2019.
16. 16. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic; 1988.
17. 17. Glasgow RE, et al. Development and validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC). Medical care 2005;43(5):436-444. doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000160375.47920.8c
18. 18. İncirkuş K, Nahcivan NÖ. A Guide for Chronic Disease Management: The Chronic Care Model. Florence Nightingale Hemşirelik Dergisi 2015;23(1):66-75. doi.org/10.17672/fnhd.49483
19. 19. Eser E, et al. Psychometric properties of tlte WHOQOL-100 and WHOOOLBREF. Psikiyatri Psikoloji Psikofarmakoloji (3P) Dergisi 1999;7(Suppl 2):23-40.
20. 20. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics. Vol 5: pearson Boston, MA; 2007.
21. 21. Bayram T, Sakarya S. Chronic disease experience of immigrant women of Turkish origin in Switzerland: a qualitative study. ESTÜDAM Halk Sağlığı Dergisi 2024;9(2):114-128. doi.org/10.35232/estudamhsd.1432980
22. 22. Akgün HS, Bakar C, Durukan E. Türkiye’ye Göç Etmiş 1. ve 2. Kuşak Göçmenlerin Sağlık Hizmetlerinden Yararlanmaları ve Kronik Hastalık Sıklığı. Araştırma, Öğretim ve Işbirliği 2013:214.
23. 23. World Health Organization. 2022. World report on the health of refugees and migrants. Geneva: WHO. Avaible date: 19.03.2026. Avaible from: https://www.who.int/teams/health-and-migration-programme/world-report-on-the-health-of-refugees-and-migrants.
24. 24. Akan G. The relationship between chronic disease care assessment and quality of life in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü; Halk Sağlığı Hemşireliği Anabilim Dalı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Danışman: Doç. Dr. Asiye Kartal, 2019.
25. 25. Doğan MD, et al. Care Satisfaction and Training Requirements in Patient with Chronic Disease. Sağlık ve Hemşirelik Yönetimi Dergisi 2019;6(1):22-28. doi.org/10.5222/SHYD.2019.39200
26. 26. Glasgow RE, et al. Use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) with diabetic patients: relationship to patient characteristics, receipt of care, and self-management. Diabetes care 2005;28(11):2655-2661. doi.org/10.2337/diacare.28.11.2655
27. 27. Yildiz E, Güngörmüş Z. Evaluation of Satisfaction in Patients with Heart Failure Towards Chronic Illness Care Service. MN Kardiyoloji 2017;24(4):140-144.
28. 28. Üstünova E, Nahcivan N. Related Factors and Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Florence Nightingale Hemşirelik Dergisi 2015;23(1):11-22. doi.org/10.17672/fnhd.44449
29. 29.Rosemann T, et al. Evaluation of a culturally adapted German version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC 5A) questionnaire in a sample of osteoarthritis patients. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2007;13(5):806-813. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00786.x
30. 30. Liu L-J, et al. Patient assessment of chronic illness care, glycemic control and the utilization of community health care among the patients with type 2 diabetes in Shanghai, China. PLoS One 2013;8(9):e73010. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073010
31. 31.Taggart J, et al. Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in two Australian studies: structure and utility. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2011;17(2):215-221. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01423.x
32. 32. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. The Milbank Quarterly 2005;83(3):457-502. doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x
33. 33. Riza E, Kalkman S, Coritsidis A, et al. Community-based healthcare for migrants and refugees: a scoping literature review of best practices. Paper presented at: Healthcare, 2020. doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8020115
34. 34. World Health Organization. 2018. Health of Refugees and Migrants: Practices for Promoting the Health of Refugees and Migrants in the WHO European Region. Avaible date: 18.03.2026. Avaible from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/health-of-refugees-and-migrants---who-european-region-(2018).