Social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic and health-related quality of life among esophageal cancer survivors

Sedentary time transitions and associations with quality of life in cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Patterns in sedentary time (SED) and its impact on quality of life (QoL) in cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to 1) compare total and domain-specific SED before and during the pandemic; and 2) examine its association with QoL in a global sample of cancer survivors.

METHODS

In an online survey, cancer survivors retrospectively self-reported domain-specific SED (e.g. transportation, television) before and during the pandemic via the Domain-Specific Sitting Time Questionnaire. QoL was assessed via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-General and FACT-Fatigue. Paired t-tests compared daily SED before and during the pandemic. Analysis of covariance compared QoL among: those who remained high (>8 h/day), remained low (<8 h/day), increased (<8 h/day to >8 h/day), or decreased (>8 h/day to <8 h/day) daily SED.

RESULTS

Among cancer survivors (N = 477, Mage=48.5 ± 15.4), 60.8% reported that their SED remained high, 19.7% remained low, 7.5% increased SED, and 11.9% decreased SED. Computer and television screen time significantly increased (p's<.001), while SED during transportation significantly decreased (p<.001). Sub-group analyses revealed that those who reduced SED who were normal or underweight (p=.042) or were meeting physical activity guidelines (p=.031) had significantly less fatigue than those who increased or remained high in SED, respectively. Those who remained high in SED with <3 comorbidities (p's =.005) had significantly better social well-being than those who increased SED.

CONCLUSIONS

As we transition to a post-pandemic era, behavioral strategies for cancer survivors should focus on reducing screen time to improve QoL and fatigue.

Factors associated with a high level of unmet needs and their prevalence in the breast cancer survivors 1–5 years after post local treatment and (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy during the COVID-19: A cross-sectional study

Objective

To assess the prevalence of unmet needs in post-treatment breast cancer survivors and identify sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables associated with reported unmet needs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and methods

In this cross-sectional study, 430 post-treatment breast cancer survivors, ranging between 1 and 5 years after the procedure, completed the Cancer Survivors’ Unmet Needs (CaSUN) questionnaire from September 2021 and January 2022. The multivariate logistic analysis identified factors associated with at least one reported unmet need in the total CaSUN scale and specific domains.

Results

A total of 67% of survivors reported at least one unmet need. The most frequently reported unmet needs were the lack of accessible hospital parking (43%) and recurrence concerns (39.5%). The majority of reported unmet needs relate to comprehensive care (44%), followed by the psychological and emotional support domain (35.3%). Younger age (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.92–0.99; p < 0.001), three or more comorbidities (OR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.11–0.71, p < 0.01), a lower quality of life (OR = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.01–0.47, p < 0.01) and low resilience (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.93–0.99) were associated with a high level of unmet needs in the multivariate regression model. Results are presented for factors associated with a high level of unmet needs for comprehensive cancer care and psychological and emotional support domain.

Conclusion

A high prevalence found in our study could be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, where patients may have missed adequate follow-up care, although comparing to studies done in non-pandemic time is difficult. Family physicians should be more attentive toward younger cancer survivors and those with more comorbidities as both characteristics can be easily recognized in the family practice.

The psychosocial and emotional experiences of cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11th, 2020. Global social lockdowns were instigated to reduce spread and prevent health-services from becoming overwhelmed. People having treatment for cancer are known to have heightened psychological/emotional burden. The combined impact of managing pandemic regulations alongside this may present additional burden. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine current evidence of the psychological and emotional impact of COVID-19 on people with cancer, early in the pandemic.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched (Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsychINFO, CINAHL) from September 2019 to October 2021. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method primary research studies exploring emotional and psychological impacts of COVID-19 on cancer patients, limited to English language, were included. Quality appraisal was conducted using the MMAT.

RESULTS

Fifty-one papers, with 27,356 people from 21 countries treated for cancer, were included. 43 studies were quantitative with a survey method approach, six studies qualitative and four used a mixed methods design. MMAT score was mostly two or three. Four themes were identified: Emotional aspects and Quality of Life; Psychosocial aspects; Impact of COVID-19 on self; Impact of COVID-19 on cancer, with themes overlapping.

CONCLUSION

Whilst emotional/psychological impacts such as anxiety, isolation, employment fears, and uncertainty about the future were potentially universal concerns early in the pandemic, they may have been particularly acute for people living with cancer and represent complex, overlapping factors. As COVID-19 continues to impact health-services and society, it is important to focus on any ongoing impact to the experience of cancer patients. Most of the studies reviewed used tools that do not provide deeper understanding of how and why emotional states of people with cancer were affected. Further qualitative work may reveal patterns of what was unique to cancer patients during the pandemic, compared to general populations.

Patient and public involvement in oesophageal cancer survivorship research

BACKGROUND

Good clinical research is often conducted in close collaboration between patients, the public, and researchers. Few studies have reported the development of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research outside the United States and the United Kingdom, and for patients with more aggressive cancers. The study aimed to describe and evaluate the development of PPI in oesophageal cancer survivorship research in Sweden by the use of a framework to support the process.

METHODS

Oesophageal cancer survivors were recruited to a PPI research collaboration at Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. The development process was supported by the use of a framework for PPI, 'Patient and service user engagement in research'. Insights, benefits, and challenges of the process were described and discussed among the collaborators.

RESULTS

The collaboration resulted in joint publications with a more patient- and family-focussed perspective. It also contributed to the development of information folders about survivorship after oesophageal cancer surgery and national conference arrangements for patients, their families, healthcare workers, and researchers. Since the PPI contributors were represented in patient organisations and care programmes, the dissemination of research results increased. Their contributions were highly valued by the researchers, but also revealed some challenges. The use of a structured framework contributed to support and facilitated the process of establishing PPI in research collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

A genuine interest in establishing PPI in research and an understanding and respect for the patients' expertise in providing a unique inside perspective was imperative for a successful collaboration. Research focus should not only be on mortality and reductions in daily life, but also on positive outcomes. Using a framework supports development and avoids pitfalls of PPI collaboration.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the study.