Purpose: Incontinence is a condition that can cause significant problems that can affect patients’ quality of social, emotional, psychological and sexual life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of anxiety, health anxiety, depression, and somatosensory amplification in patients with urge incontinence. Materials and Methods: The study group consisted of 58 patients that met the inclusion criteria. The control group consisted of 67 volunteer participants that did not have physical or psychiatric illness and incontinence complaints. All participants filled out sociodemographic data form, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS), and Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI). Results: The mean duration of incontinence in patients with urge incontinence was 16.55 ± 10.03 months. The mean age in urge incontinence group and the control group were 40.98 ± 9.58 and 39.1 ± 7.89 years, respectively. The mean values of SSAS, HAI, and BAI scores in the incontinence group were significantly higher than the control group (p <0.001), but there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of BDI scores. The linear regression analysis indicated that HAI and BAI significantly affected SSAS (p = 0.025 and 0.019, respectively). Conclusions: Anxiety, health anxiety and somatosensory amplification are more common in patients who report urge incontinence. For these reasons, we believe that psychiatric evaluation should be included in the diagnosis and treatment process of patients presenting with urgency and incontinence symptoms. Keywords: Incontinance, Somatosensory Amplification, Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Urgency.

Aim: To evaluate the tendency, knowledge, awareness and behavior patterns of urology residents training at different institutions in Turkey about the use of fluoroscopy in operations. Methods: The 13-questioned survey prepared using “Google Forms©” as of 01.03.2021 was shared for four weeks in the “WhatsApp®” application group, which includes 279 urology residents studying with university hospitals and training and research hospitals in Turkey. One hundred and thirteen participants, who completed the questionnaire were included in the study. Results: Of the 113 urology residents included in the study, 56 (49.6%) were studying in university hospitals and 57 (50.4%) were in training and research hospitals. 67.3% of the residents stated that they never hesitated to participate in the operations which fluoroscopy was used. Additionally, the residents stated that, also 43.4% of the auxiliary healthcare staff frequently refrain from being involved in these cases(p <0.001). While 21 (37.5%) of the residents trained in the university hospital reported that they hesitated from these cases, this rate was found that 16 (28.2%) of the residents who were trained in the training and research hospitals and a significant difference was observed between two groups (p <0.016). Among residents, the rate of using radioprotective lead apron was 94.7%, and the rate of thyroid shield use was 98.2%. While the rate of using radiation protective glasses was 1.8%, it was learned that none of the residents used radioprotective gloves. Only 5.3% of the residents stated that they are trained in subjects about the harmful radiation effect. Conclusion: Urology residents in Turkey do not receive sufficient training on the harmful effects of fluoroscopy, which they frequently use in their daily practice. In addition, the residents whom training in university hospitals are more scared of the radiation exposure from fluoroscopy than their colleagues working in training and research hospitals.