The use of person-first language (i.e., the person with a disability) versus identity-first language (i.e., the disabled person) is a source of ongoing debate. Proponents of person-first language argue for its use, so as not to objectify or stereotype a person by their illness or disability. Conversely, advocates of identity-first language state that it affirms pride in the person’s disability. Overall, however, there is a growing use of identity-first language. Both proponents of person-first and identity-first language are aligned in their quest to maximise respect and inclusivity of people with disabilities and health conditions. Limited research examining the language preferences of those with disabilities and/or medical issues has been mixed. The majority of the research has focused on autism, multiple sclerosis and deaf/blind populations. In some cases, studies have methodological issues, and researchers have concentrated on the perspectives of students, employees and counsellors. Factors that may influence preferences, such as disability type, severity, acceptance and identity, have not been adequately examined in the research. Future research is required to gain an evidence-based understanding of language preferences that can improve social inclusion for people with varying disabilities and health conditions. What is already known about this topic: (1) There is ongoing debate about the use of person-first versus identity-first language. (2) Both proponents of person-first and identity-first language are aligned in their quest to maximise respect and inclusivity of people with disabilities and health conditions. (3) Some disability scholars have proposed that psychologists use person-first and identity first language interchangeably. What this paper adds: (1) An overview of previous research finds that much has not been conducted in people with disabilities and is inappropriate for generalisation more broadly (2) There is a deficit in knowledge about factors that may influence language preferences, such as disability type, severity, acceptance and identity which have not been adequately examined. (3) Future research is required to gain an evidence-based understanding of language preferences that can improve social inclusion and maximise respect for people with varying disabilities and health conditions.

Purpose: Evidence supports the role of prescribed exercise for cancer survivors, yet few are advised to exercise by a healthcare practitioner (HCP). We sought to investigate the gap between HCPs’ knowledge and practice from an international perspective. Methods: An online questionnaire was administered to HCPs working in cancer care between February 2020 and February 2021. The questionnaire assessed knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding exercise counselling and referral of cancer survivors to exercise programs. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 375 participants classified as medical practitioners (42%), nurses (28%), exercise specialists (14%), and non-exercise allied health practitioners (16%). Between 35 and 50% of participants self-reported poor knowledge of when, how, and which cancer survivors to refer to exercise programs or professionals, and how to counsel based on exercise guidelines. Commonly reported barriers to exercise counselling were safety concerns, time constraints, cancer survivors being told to rest by friends and family, and not knowing how to screen people for suitability to exercise (40–48%). Multivariable logistic regression models including age, gender, practitioner group, leisure-time physical activity, and recall of guidelines found significant effects for providing specific exercise advice (χ²(7) = 117.31, p < .001), discussing the role of exercise in symptom management (χ²(7) = 65.13, p < .001) and cancer outcomes (χ²(7) = 58.69, p < .001), and referring cancer survivors to an exercise program or specialist (χ²(7) = 72.76, p < .001). Conclusion: Additional education and practical support are needed to equip HCPs to provide cancer survivors with exercise guidelines, resources, and referrals to exercise specialists.

Background: The experience of psychological distress is prevalent in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), including high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. It has been shown that people with MS use less adaptive coping compared with healthy individuals. This study examined the ability of coping strategies to predict maladaptive and adaptive psychosocial outcomes across areas of stress, depression, anxiety, and quality of life (QOL) in people with MS. Methods: 107 people with MS completed measures of depression (Beck Depression Inventory–II), anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), QOL (Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life–54), stress (Daily Hassles Scale), and coping (COPE inventory). Results: Consistent with expectations, depression, frequency of stress, trait anxiety, and mental health QOL were predicted by adaptive and maladaptive coping styles. Severity of stressful events was predicted by maladaptive, but not adaptive, coping styles. Depression and mental health QOL were most prominently connected to coping use. Emotional preoccupation and venting showed the strongest relationship with poorer psychosocial outcomes, whereas positive reinterpretation and growth seemed to be most beneficial. Conclusions: The results of this study highlight the importance of intervention programs targeting specific coping strategies to enhance psychosocial adjustment for people with MS.