Cargando…

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 throug...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McMullin, Mary Frances, James, Glen, Duncombe, Andrew S., de Vocht, Frank, Fritschi, Lin, Clarke, Mike, Anderson, Lesley A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4882775/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27239389
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40164-016-0043-4
_version_ 1782434172256649216
author McMullin, Mary Frances
James, Glen
Duncombe, Andrew S.
de Vocht, Frank
Fritschi, Lin
Clarke, Mike
Anderson, Lesley A.
author_facet McMullin, Mary Frances
James, Glen
Duncombe, Andrew S.
de Vocht, Frank
Fritschi, Lin
Clarke, Mike
Anderson, Lesley A.
author_sort McMullin, Mary Frances
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4882775
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48827752016-05-28 Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study McMullin, Mary Frances James, Glen Duncombe, Andrew S. de Vocht, Frank Fritschi, Lin Clarke, Mike Anderson, Lesley A. Exp Hematol Oncol Research 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. BioMed Central 2016-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4882775/ /pubmed/27239389 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40164-016-0043-4 Text en © McMullin et al 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
McMullin, Mary Frances
James, Glen
Duncombe, Andrew S.
de Vocht, Frank
Fritschi, Lin
Clarke, Mike
Anderson, Lesley A.
Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study
title Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study
title_full Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study
title_fullStr Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study
title_full_unstemmed Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study
title_short Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study
title_sort patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4882775/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27239389
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40164-016-0043-4
work_keys_str_mv AT mcmullinmaryfrances patientperspectivesofadiagnosisofmyeloproliferativeneoplasminacasecontrolstudy
AT jamesglen patientperspectivesofadiagnosisofmyeloproliferativeneoplasminacasecontrolstudy
AT duncombeandrews patientperspectivesofadiagnosisofmyeloproliferativeneoplasminacasecontrolstudy
AT devochtfrank patientperspectivesofadiagnosisofmyeloproliferativeneoplasminacasecontrolstudy
AT fritschilin patientperspectivesofadiagnosisofmyeloproliferativeneoplasminacasecontrolstudy
AT clarkemike patientperspectivesofadiagnosisofmyeloproliferativeneoplasminacasecontrolstudy
AT andersonlesleya patientperspectivesofadiagnosisofmyeloproliferativeneoplasminacasecontrolstudy