An Overview of the International Literature on Health-Related Quality of Life, Mental Health and Psychosocial Issues in People with Cancer

The impact of MDQ positivity on quality of life impairment: Does it support the hypothesis of "Dysregulation of Mood, Energy, and Social Rhythms Syndrome" (DYMERS)?

Background

DSM-5 separates bipolar (BD) from depressive disorders, but some experts consider BD as part of a spectrum of mood disorders. The interpretation of numerous false positives of BD screened by the Mood Disorders Questionnaire (MDQ) is part of this debate. Recent study results suggest that the worsening of health-related quality of life (H-Qol) associated with MDQ positivity does not depend solely on mood disorders. This study aims to clarify whether the impairment may be due to other concomitant disorders, unrelated to mood disorders, leading to a worsening of H-Qol. Additionally, the study aims to explore if MDQ positivity itself observe clinical significance.

Design and methods

The study involved pairs of cases (MDQ+) and controls (MDQ-) matched for sex, age, and absence of DSM-IV psychiatric comorbidity. The impact of MDQ positivity on the quality of life in a sample of MDQ+ comorbid with MDD was measured and compared to impact of MDD in other chronic disorders.

Results

The H-Qol was significantly worse in MDQ+ than in controls (both groups without any psychiatric co-morbidity). The worsening was similar to severe chronic disorders The burden of worsening quality of life due to MDD was mild in another sample of MDQ positives with comorbid MDD.

Conclusion

The study hypothesizes that MDQ positivity may be related to hyperactivation and dysregulation of rhythms typical of stress disorders. In fact, MDQ+ was found strongly related to sleep disturbances. Future studies could verify if a "Dysregulation of Mood, Energy, and Social Rhythms Syndrome" (DYMERS), causes worsening the H-Qol in MDQ+.

Global Mapping of Interventions to Improve Quality of Life of Patients with Cancer: A Protocol for Literature Mining and Meta-Analysis

Cancer led to nearly 10 million deaths in 2020, as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO). Consequently, both biomedical therapeutics and psychological interventions have been implemented to decrease the burden of this non-communicable disease. However, the research conducted so far has only described some aspects of these interventions, which may increase the health-related quality of life of cancer patients. Therefore, a systematic review is necessary to depict an overall picture of the cancer interventions globally. Then, the impact of these interventions on the preference-based health-related quality of life of cancer patients may be synthesized. The protocol is developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The Web of Science database is used to retrieve the literature using four keyword terms: quality of life (QoL), cancer, interventions, and health utility. Then, we draw the global mapping diagram and conduct the meta-analysis for this research. Additionally, longitudinal measurements are used to estimate the changes in the health utility of patients during the interventions. Thus, this systematic review can provide insight into the impact of interventions on increasing the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of cancer patients.

Brain Fog and Quality of Life at Work in Non-Hospitalized Patients after COVID-19

Background: There is still a need for studies on the quality of life (QoL) at work among COVID-19 survivors. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the association between the brain fog symptoms and the QoL at work in non-hospitalized patients with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: Three hundred non-hospitalized patients (79.33% women; median age, 36 years; interquartile range, 30-48 years) were included in the final analysis. An anonymous neuropsychological questionnaire containing eight different questions on the presence of brain fog symptoms in four time intervals, i.e., pre-COVID-19 and 0-4, 4-12, and >12 weeks after infection, was retrospectively introduced to patients and staff of the University Hospital in Krakow. Additionally, a four-point Likert scale was used to evaluate QoL at work in four time periods. Included were participants aged ≥ 18 years in whom the diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by the RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swab and the first symptoms occurred no earlier than 3 months before the completion of the questionnaire. Results: Before SARS-CoV-2 infection, 28.00% (n = 84) of patients reported poor QoL at work. Within 4, 4-12, and >12 weeks after infection, a decrease in QoL was observed in 75.67% (n = 227), 65.00% (n = 195), and 53.66% (n = 161) of patients, respectively (p < 0.001). With increasing deterioration of the QoL at work, the number of brain fog symptoms increased, and patients with severe QoL impairment exhibited a median of five symptoms for <4, 4-12, and >12 weeks post-COVID-19. In the multivariable logistic regression model, predictors of the deterioration of the QoL at work depended on the time from COVID-19 onset; in the acute phase of the disease (<4 weeks), it was predicted by impairment in remembering information from the past (OR 1.88, 95%CI: 1.18-3.00, p = 0.008) and multitasking (OR 1.96, 95%CI: 1.48-2.58, p < 0.001). Furthermore, an impairment in the QoL at work 4-12 weeks and >12 weeks after COVID-19 was independently associated with age (OR 0.46, 95%CI: 0.25-0.85, p = 0.014 and OR 1.03, 95%CI: 1.01-1.05, p = 0.025, respectively), problems with multitasking (OR 2.05, 95%CI: 1.40-3.01, p < 0.001 and OR 1.75, 95%CI: 1.15-2.66, p = 0.009, respectively), answering questions in an understandable/unambiguous manner (OR 1.99, 95%CI: 1.27-3.14, p = 0.003 and OR 2.00, 95%CI: 1.47-2.36, p = 0.001, respectively), and, only for the >12 week interval, problems with remembering information from the past (OR 2.21, 95%CI: 1.24-3.92, p = 0.007). Conclusions: Certain brain fog symptoms, such as impaired memory or multitasking, are predictors of a poorer QoL at work not only during the acute phase of COVID-19 but also within more than 12 weeks after the onset of infection.