Dataset Information

Psychosocial perspectives among cancer patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis: An observational longitudinal study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis and consequent changes in medical practice have engendered feelings of distress in diverse populations, potentially adversely affecting the psychological well-being of cancer patients.

Aim

The purpose of this observational longitudinal study was to evaluate psychosocial perspectives among patients with cancer on intravenous treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods and results

The study recruited 164 cancer patients undergoing intravenous anti-neoplastic therapy in a tertiary cancer center. Psychosocial indices were assessed at two points in time, corresponding with the beginning of the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in Israel (March 2020) and the time of easing of restrictions implemented to curtail spread of infection (May 2020). At Time 1 (T1), elevated COVID-19 distress levels (score 1 and 2 on 5-point scale) were observed in 44% of patients, and associated with pre-existing hypertension and lung disease in multivariate analyses but no demographic or cancer related factors. At Time 2 (T2), 10% had elevated anxiety and 24% depression as indicated by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A/D). COVID-19 distress at T1 was related to higher levels of HADS-A at T2 (Spearman 0.33 p < .01), but not HADS-D. Patients with breast cancer expressed greater COVID-19 distress compared with other cancer types (p < .01), while both HADS-A and HADS-D were highest for patients with GI cancer. Patient report of loneliness and decreased support from relatives were factors associated with HADS-A (p = .03 and p < .01, respectively), while HADS-D was not similarly related to the factors evaluated.

Conclusion

Patients with cancer undergoing intravenous treatment may be vulnerable to acute adverse psychological ramifications of COVID-19, specifically exhibiting high levels of anxiety. These appear unrelated to patient age or disease stage. Those with underlying comorbidities, breast cancer or reduced social support may be at higher risk.

SUBMITTER: Turgeman I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8420321 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsOur objective was to determine the ventricular arrhythmia burden in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients during COVID-19.Methods and resultsIn this multicentre, observational, cohort study over a 100-day period during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA, we assessed ventricular arrhythmias in ICD patients from 20 centres in 13 states, via remote monitoring. Comparison was via a 100-day control period (late 2019) and seasonal control period (early 2019). The primary outcome was the impact of COVID-19 on ventricular arrhythmia burden. The secondary outcome was correlation with COVID-19 incidence. During the COVID-19 period, 5963 ICD patients underwent remote monitoring, with 16 942 episodes of treated ventricular arrhythmias (2.8 events per 100 patient-days). Ventricular arrhythmia burden progressively declined during COVID-19 (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with ventricular arrhythmias amongst the high COVID-19 incidence states was significantly reduced compared with those in low incidence states [odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.69, P < 0.001]. Comparing patients remotely monitored during both COVID-19 and control periods (n = 2458), significantly fewer ventricular arrhythmias occurred during COVID-19 [incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.79, P < 0.001]. This difference persisted when comparing the 1719 patients monitored during both the COVID-19 and seasonal control periods (IRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.85, P < 0.001).ConclusionsDuring COVID-19, there was a 32% reduction in ventricular arrhythmias needing device therapies, coinciding with measures of social isolation. There was a 39% reduction in the proportion of patients with ventricular arrhythmias in states with higher COVID-19 incidence. These findings highlight the potential role of real-life stressors in ventricular arrhythmia burden in individuals with ICDs.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry; URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique Identifier: ACTRN12620000641998.

Project description:Existing theories of aging suggest that there may be similarities and differences in how COVID-19 impacts older people's psychosocial adaptation compared to younger age groups, particularly middle-aged individuals. To assess the degree to which these impacts vary, we analyzed data from 3098 participants between the ages of 40 and 79 from an online survey in Germany. Data were collected at three measurement occasions between the start of the nationwide lockdown in mid-March 2020 and the end of the lockdown in early August 2020. The survey focused on everyday experiences during the COVID-19 crisis and collected various satisfaction ratings (e.g., general life satisfaction, satisfaction with family life, satisfaction with social contacts). At baseline, participants also provided retrospective ratings of satisfaction for the period before the COVID-19 crisis. In our analyses, we compared satisfaction ratings of middle-aged (40-64 years) and older individuals (65-79 years) and found that both middle-aged and older participants experienced the greatest decreases in satisfaction with social contacts, with more pronounced decreases seen in middle-aged participants. A similar pattern was observed for general life satisfaction, but the overall decreases were less pronounced in both groups compared to the decreases in satisfaction with social contacts. We also observed a partial recovery effect in all measures at the last measurement occasion, and this effect was more pronounced in older adults. Findings were also confirmed using age as a continuous variable and checking for linear and nonlinear effects of outcomes across the age range. Although ageism arose during the pandemic in the sense that older adults were labeled as a "risk group," particularly at the start of the outbreak, we found consistently with other studies that middle-aged adults' satisfaction decreased to a greater extent than that of older adults.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10433-021-00655-1.