Tab. 5. Results of comparative analysis of treatment adherence. Treatment adherence Group 1 N=58 m SD 5,76 1,58 Group 2 N=45 m SD 4,73 1,89 Group 3 N=66 m SD 4,91 2,17 Significance of differences p1-p2 = 0,050 p1-p3 = 0,036 This technique showed that the level of adherence to treatment in all groups is below normal, indicating nonadherence of patients in all 3 comparison groups. The scores of groups 2 and 3 are statistically significantly lower than group 1 (p1-p2 = 0.050; p1-p3 = 0.036), while the factor "Perception of controllability of illness and treatment" of groups 2 and 3, on the contrary, is higher than group 1. This indicates the belief of groups 2 and 3 that their illness is controlled by some other means than the therapy prescribed by the doctor. Overall, the results indicate a general distrust of therapy and its underestimation by patients . Tab. 6. Results of comparative analysis of the level of mindfulness in the surveyed groups.

Description Conscious activity Non-judgmental attitude to experience Unresponsiveness Group 1 N=58 m SD 29,19 6,24 27,16 6,25 24,86 5,99 20,43 4,09 Group 2 N=45 m SD 25,66 4,91 24,46 5,89 26,37 6,17 21,37 4,41 Group 3 N=66 m SD 23,58 5,76 24,53 4,90 27,84 4,75 18,79 3,87

Significance of differences 1-2 = 0,005 1-3 = 0,002 1-2 = 0,050 1-3 = 0,005 2-3 = 0,040 According to the methodology, on the scale "Description" groups 2 and 3 have indicators below the normative ones. For other scales the results correspond to the norm. Table 5 shows that group 1 has higher scores on the "Description" and "Conscious activity" scales; group 2 on the "Non-response" scale; group 3 on the "Non-evaluative attitude to experience" scale. Many significant differences were obtained for all scales of the methodology, but group 1 more often has statistically significant differences with respect to groups 2 and 3, which indicates a certain isolation of the first group from the others in this particular methodology [7,9,28].

Discussion This study is a continuation of our paradigm formulated in a study of illness perception and adaptation to illness in patients with immunoinflammatory rheumatic diseases , and also continues the general direction of our research. If we describe the results of the study conceptually, we can notice that the results of some of them "overlap" with each other. Namely, the results of the methods "Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire" (it was used for case factorization and clustering), "Coping with Difficult Life Situations Questionnaire" and "Five-Factor Awareness Questionnaire" have some common configuration of results. Overlaying the results of the methods on clustering, we see the following: Group 1, having a high factor of threat of illness, but a reduced value in the perceptions of control, shows more moderate use of all coping strategies and at the same time more pronounced