European journal of haematology · 2017
Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance as viewed by haematology healthcare professionals.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McShane Charlene M, Murphy Blain, Lim Kah Heng, Anderson Lesley A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the words and descriptions used by haematology healthcare professionals (HCPs) to describe monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) to their patients.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of haematology HCPs attending an annual haematology conference was undertaken. Content analysis was applied to the returned qualitative responses.
RESULTS: In total, 55 people, many of whom were doctors (n = 32; 58.2%), responded. The majority of respondents reported using simple terminology such as "abnormal protein" to describe MGUS to their patients. Some reported using analogies that the patient was more likely to be familiar with, such as comparing a paraprotein to the finding of a mole or lump. Education level, age and cognitive ability were cited as important factors in deciding how and whether information was relayed to patients. Many respondents supported frequent follow-up and the transfer of low-risk MGUS patients to primary care. However, several highlighted a lack of awareness and understanding of MGUS outside of haematology, particularly within primary care. Only 41.8% of respondents reported providing all of their patients with an information leaflet.
CONCLUSIONS: With an ageing population, it is important to consider management strategies for MGUS patients. Our findings will assist those in making these arrangements.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of haematology HCPs attending an annual haematology conference was undertaken. Content analysis was applied to the returned qualitative responses.
RESULTS: In total, 55 people, many of whom were doctors (n = 32; 58.2%), responded. The majority of respondents reported using simple terminology such as "abnormal protein" to describe MGUS to their patients. Some reported using analogies that the patient was more likely to be familiar with, such as comparing a paraprotein to the finding of a mole or lump. Education level, age and cognitive ability were cited as important factors in deciding how and whether information was relayed to patients. Many respondents supported frequent follow-up and the transfer of low-risk MGUS patients to primary care. However, several highlighted a lack of awareness and understanding of MGUS outside of haematology, particularly within primary care. Only 41.8% of respondents reported providing all of their patients with an information leaflet.
CONCLUSIONS: With an ageing population, it is important to consider management strategies for MGUS patients. Our findings will assist those in making these arrangements.