Interpersonal positive reframing in the daily lives of couples coping with breast cancer

Abstract

Objectives: This study examined word use as an indicator of interpersonal positive reframing in daily conversations of couples coping with breast cancer and as a predictor of stress.

Design: The Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR) and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) were used to examine naturally occurring word use conceptually linked to positive reframing (positive emotion, negative emotion, and cognitive processing words).

Sample: Fifty-two couples coping with breast cancer.

Methods: Couples wore the EAR, a device participants wear, that audio-recorded over one weekend (>16,000 sound files), and completed self-reports of positive reframing (COPE) and stress (Perceived Stress Scale). LIWC, a software program, measured word use.

Findings: Both partners’ word use (i.e., positive emotion and cognitive processing words) was associated with their own reported positive reframing, and spouses’ word use was also indicative of patients’ positive reframing. Results also revealed that, in general, words indicating positive reframing predicted lower levels of stress.

Conclusions: Findings supported the hypothesis that partners—and particularly spouses of breast cancer patients—may assist each other’s coping by positively reframing the cancer experience and other negative experiences in conversation.     

Clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease in female SLE patients: Interplay between body mass index and bone mineral density

Background and aims

Since accelerated atherosclerosis has been reported in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), predictive biomarkers of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are needed. Among non-traditional risk factors, bone mineral density (BMD) has been related to CVD. However, its role in SLE remains controversial. This study aims to analyze the associations of subclinical atherosclerosis with traditional and non-traditional CV risk factors.

The diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy in distinguishing between peritoneal mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas: a comparative study.

The histologic distinction between peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas diffusely involving the peritoneum may be difficult, but it can be facilitated by the use of immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy. D2-40 and podoplanin are two recently recognized lymphatic endothelial markers that can be expressed in normal mesothelial cells and mesotheliomas. The purpose of this study is to compare the value of these new mesothelial markers with those that are commonly used for discriminating between mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas, and also to determine the current role of electron microscopy in distinguishing between these malignancies. A total of 40 peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and 45 serous carcinomas of the ovary (15 primary, 30 metastatic to the peritoneum) were investigated for the expression of the following markers: D2-40, podoplanin, calretinin, keratin 5/6, thrombomodulin, MOC-31, Ber-EP4, B72.3 (TAG-72), BG-8 (Lewis(Y)), CA19-9, and leu-M1 (CD15). All 40 (100%) of the mesotheliomas reacted for calretinin, 93% for D2-40, 93% for podoplanin, 93% for keratin 5/6, 73% for thrombomodulin, 13% for Ber-EP4, 5% for MOC-31, 3% for BG-8, and none for B72.3, CA19-9, or leu-M1. All 45 (100%) serous carcinomas were positive for Ber-EP4, 98% for MOC-31, 73% for B72.3, 73% for BG-8, 67% for CA19-9, 58% for leu-M1, 31% for keratin 5/6, 31% for calretinin, 13% for D2-40, 13% for podoplanin, and 4% for thrombomodulin. After analyzing the results, it is concluded that Ber-EP4 and MOC-31 are the best negative mesothelioma markers for differentiating between epithelioid mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas. The best discriminators among the positive markers for mesotheliomas are D2-40, podoplanin, and calretinin. From a practical point of view, Ber-EP4 and MOC-31, in combination with calretinin, and/or D2-40 or podoplanin allow the differential diagnosis to be established between mesothelioma and serous carcinoma in nearly all instances. As a clear distinction could be made between these two malignancies in all of the cases in which electron microscopy was performed, this technique can be very useful in establishing the correct diagnosis when the immunohistochemical results are equivocal or further support of a diagnosis of either mesothelioma or serous carcinoma is needed.     

Documenting asthma severity: do we get it right?

BACKGROUND: The 1997 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) recommends a severity classification scheme to optimize the use of anti-inflammatory therapy for persistent asthma. Physician documentation of asthma severity is often used as a quality assurance measure. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that physician documentation of asthma severity is associated with appropriate use of anti-inflammatory therapy. DESIGN/METHODS: Setting: inner-city academic health center. First, we reviewed a consecutive sample of charts of scheduled pediatric patients. Then, we administered a structured parent survey regarding the child's asthma symptoms and current asthma therapy. We used NAEPP guidelines to classify patients' severity of asthma. The main outcome measure was appropriate use of anti-inflammatory therapy. Appropriate therapy was defined as: (1) mild persistent asthmatics using anti-inflammatory therapy, and (2) moderate-severe persistent asthmatics using inhaled steroids. Chart classification of asthma severity was compared with the NAEPP-applied classification. RESULTS: Of 784 charts, 214 (27%) were asthmatic. Of these, 176 (82%) were surveyed. The mean age was 7.4 years; 61% were males. Severity classification was documented in 77% of charts. Chart documentation differed significantly from survey classification for the same patients: (mild intermittent 54% vs. 40%, mild persistent 21% vs. 14%, moderate persistent 24% vs. 36%, severe persistent 1% vs. 10%; all p < .001). Correctly classified patients were more likely to be on appropriate therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians underestimated the severity classification of asthmatic patients. Incorrect classification was associated with inappropriate asthma therapy. These findings have implications for the institution of asthma quality improvement programs.