Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study

Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) including the classic entities; polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis are rare diseases with unknown aetiology. The MOSAICC study, is an exploratory case–control study in which information was collected through telephone questionnaires and medical records. Methods: As part of the study, 106 patients with MPN were asked about their perceived diagnosis and replies correlated with their haematologist’s diagnosis. For the first time, a patient perspective on their MPN diagnosis and classification was obtained. Logistic regression analyses were utilised to evaluate the role of variables in whether or not a patient reported their diagnosis during interview with co-adjustment for these variables. Chi square tests were used to investigate the association between MPN subtype and patient reported categorisation of MPN. Results: Overall, 77.4 % of patients reported a diagnosis of MPN. Of those, 39.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘blood condition’,23.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘cancer’ and 13.2 % acknowledged MPN as an ‘other medical condition’. There was minimal overlap between the categories. Patients with PV were more likely than those with ET to report their disease as a ‘blood condition’. ET patients were significantly more likely than PV patients not to report their condition at all.Patients from a single centre were more likely to report their diagnosis as MPN while age, educational status, and WHO re-classification had no effect. Conclusions: The discrepancy between concepts of MPN in patients could result from differing patient interest in their condition, varying information conveyed by treating hematologists, concealment due to denial or financial concerns. Explanations for the differences in patient perception of the nature of their disease, requires further, larger scale investigation.

Implications of coping strategies and community cohesion for mental health in Colombia

In the face of mass human rights violations and constant threats to security, there is growing recognition of the resilience of people and communities. This paper builds on such work by investigating the effects of individual coping strategies, perceived community cohesion, and their interaction on mental health symptoms in Colombia. The study was conducted five years after the mass demobilisation of the former paramilitaries and takes an exploratory quantitative approach to identify two distinct forms of coping approaches among participants living in the Caribbean coast of Colombia. A constructive coping approach included active engagement, planning behaviours, emotional support, acceptance and positive reframing of daily stressors. A destructive coping approach in this study entailed denial of problems, substance use and behavioural disengagement from day-to-day stress. In addition, the strength of perceived community cohesion, or how close-knit and effective the individuals feel about the community in which they live, was examined. Structural equation modelling revealed that a constructive coping approach was significantly related to lower depression, while a destructive coping approach predicted more symptoms of depression. Although there was not a significant direct effect of perceived community cohesion on mental health outcomes, it did enhance the effect of constructive coping strategies at the trend level. That is, individuals who used constructive coping strategies and perceived their communities to be more cohesive, reported fewer depression symptoms than those who lived in less cohesive settings. Implications for promoting constructive coping strategies, as well as fostering cohesion in the community, are discussed.