We have located links that may give you full text access.
Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance as viewed by haematology healthcare professionals.
European Journal of Haematology 2018 January
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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app