Dataset Information

DElayed COloRectal cancer care during COVID-19 Pandemic (DECOR-19): Global perspective from an international survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer care during the pandemic.

Methods

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of colorectal cancer patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in colorectal cancer care. Respondents were divided into 2 comparator groups: (1) "delay" group: colorectal cancer care affected by the pandemic and (2) "no delay" group: unaltered colorectal cancer practice.

Results

A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the delay (745, 70.9%) and no delay (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to coronavirus disease 2019 units, units fully dedicated to coronavirus disease 2019 care, and personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology, and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the delay group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan, and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of colorectal cancer care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in coronavirus disease-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to coronavirus disease 2019 units were statistically associated with unaltered colorectal cancer care in the no delay group, while the geographic distribution was not.

Conclusion

Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic colorectal cancer practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health care delivery systems, hospital's preparedness, resource availability, and local coronavirus disease 2019 prevalence rather than geographic factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize colorectal cancer care.

SUBMITTER: Santoro GA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7670903 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesA multicentre survey was designed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on dental practice worldwide, estimate the COVID-19 related symptoms/signs, work attitudes and behaviour and the routine use of protective measures and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).MethodsA global survey using a standardized questionnaire with research groups from 36 countries was designed. The questionnaire was developed and pretested during April 2020 and contained three domains: 1) Personal data; 2) COVID-19 positive rate and symptoms/signs presumably related to the coronavirus; 3) Working conditions and PPE adopted after the outbreak. Countries' data were grouped by the Country Positive Rate (CPR) during the survey period and by Gross-National-Income per capita. An ordinal multinomial logistic regression model was carried out with COVID-19 self-reported rate referred by dental professionals as dependent variable to assess the association with questionnaire items.ResultsA total of 52,491 questionnaires were returned with a male/female ratio of 0.63. Out of the total respondents, 7,859 dental professionals (15%) reported symptoms/signs compatible with COVID-19. More than half of the sample (n = 27,818; 53%) stated to use FFP2/N95 masks, while 21,558 (41.07%) used eye protection. In the bivariate analysis, CPR and N95/FFP2 were significantly associated (OR = 1.80 95%CI = 1.60/2.82 and OR = 5.20 95%CI = 1.44/18.80, respectively), while Gross-National-Income was not statistically associated with CPR (OR = 1.09 95%CI = 0.97/1.60). The same significant associations were observed in the multivariate analysis.ConclusionsOral health service provision has not been significantly affected by COVID-19, although access to routine dental care was reduced due to country-specific temporary lockdown periods. While the dental profession has been identified at high-risk, the reported rates of COVID-19 for dental professionals were not significantly different to those reported for the general population in each country. These findings may help to better plan oral health care for future pandemic events.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has strained the healthcare systems across the world but its impact on acute stroke care is just being elucidated. We hypothesized a major global impact of COVID-19 not only on stroke volumes but also on various aspects of thrombectomy systems.AimsWe conducted a convenience electronic survey with a 21-item questionnaire aimed to identify the changes in stroke admission volumes and thrombectomy treatment practices seen during a specified time period of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe survey was designed using Qualtrics software and sent to stroke and neuro-interventional physicians around the world who are part of the Global Executive Committee (GEC) of Mission Thrombectomy 2020, a global coalition under the aegis of Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology, between April 5th and May 15th, 2020.ResultsThere were 113 responses to the survey across 25 countries with a response rate of 31% among the GEC members. Globally there was a median 33% decrease in stroke admissions and a 25% decrease in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic period until May 15th, 2020 compared to pre-pandemic months. The intubation policy for MT procedures during the pandemic was highly variable across participating centers: 44% preferred intubating all patients, including 25% of centers that changed their policy to preferred-intubation (PI) from preferred non-intubation (PNI). On the other hand, 56% centers preferred not intubating patients undergoing MT, which included 27% centers that changed their policy from PI to PNI. There was no significant difference in rate of COVID-19 infection between PI versus PNI centers (p=0.60) or if intubation policy was changed in either direction (p=1.00). Low-volume (<10 stroke/month) compared with high-volume stroke centers (>20 strokes/month) were less likely to have neurointerventional suite specific written personal protective equipment protocols (74% vs 88%) and if present, these centers were more likely to report them to be inadequate (58% vs 92%).ConclusionOur data provides a comprehensive snapshot of the impact on acute stroke care observed worldwide during the pandemic. Overall, respondents reported decreased stroke admissions as well as decreased cases of MT with no clear preponderance in intubation policy during MT.Data access statementThe corresponding author will consider requests for sharing survey data. The study was exempt from institutional review board approval as it did not involve patient level data.

Project description:Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in international communications and travel for academic global health programs (AGHPs) in both high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the importance of international travel and communication to AGHPs, the pandemic has likely had considerable impact on the education, research, and administrative components of these programs. To date, no substantive study has determined the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on AGHPs in HICs and LMICs. This study assessed the impacts and resultant adaptations of AGHPs to pandemic realities with the goal of sharing strategies and approaches. Methods: This study applied a mixed methods sequential explanatory design to survey AGHPs in HICs and LMICs about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on three program domains: education, research, and administration. First, we surveyed a range of AGHP stakeholders to capture quantitative data on the pandemic’s impact. Subsequently we conducted semi-structured interviews with select survey participants to gather qualitative data expanding on specific survey responses. Data from both phases were then compared and interpreted together to develop conclusions and suggest adaptive/innovative approaches for AGHPs. Results: AGHPs in both HICs and LMICs were significantly impacted by the pandemic in all three domains, though in different ways. While education initiatives managed to adapt by pivoting towards virtual learning, research programs were impacted more negatively by the disruptions in communication and international travel. The impact of the pandemic on scholarly output as well as on funding for education and research was quite variable, although LMIC programs were more negatively impacted. Administratively, AGHPs implemented a range of safety and risk mitigation strategies and showed a low risk tolerance for international travel. The pandemic posed many challenges but also revealed opportunities for AGHPs. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted AGHPs in HICs and LMICs in expected and unexpected ways. Programs noted some unanticipated reductions in education program funding, negative impacts on research programs, and reduced scholarly output. Many programs reported well-coordinated adaptive responses to the pandemic including, for instance, virtual (in place of in-person) collaboration in research. The pandemic will likely have lasting impacts with regard to education, research collaborations, and administration of programs.