Dataset Information

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on care of melanoma patients in Berlin, Germany: the Mela-COVID survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic imposes major challenges for care of cancer patients.

Objectives

Our aim was to assess the effects of the pandemic on treatment and appointments of patients with malignant melanoma based on a large skin cancer centre in Berlin, Germany, and identify reasons for, and impact factors associated with these changes.

Materials & methods

Patients with melanoma treated from January 1^st 2019 received a postal survey with questions on impairment due to the pandemic, fear of COVID-19, fear of melanoma, changes in therapy and/or appointments, including reasons for the changes. Impact factors on postponed/missed appointments were examined using descriptive analyses and multivariate logistic regression.

Results

The response rate was 41.3% (n = 324; 57.4% males; mean age: 67.9 years). Among 104 participants currently receiving therapy, four (3.8%) reported treatment changes due to the pandemic. Postponements or cancellations of appointments occurred in 48 participants (14.8%), most frequently, at their own request (81.3%) due to fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection (68.8%). Current treatment was associated with a reduced chance of postponing/missing appointments (OR = 0.208, p = 0.003), whereas a high or very high level of concern for COVID-19 (OR = 6.806, p = 0.034; OR = 10.097, p = 0.038), SARS-CoV-2 infection among close acquaintances (OR = 4.251, p = 0.026), anxiety disorder (OR = 5.465, p = 0.016) and AJCC stage IV (OR = 3.108, p = 0.048) were associated with a higher likelihood of postponing/missing appointments.

Conclusion

Among our participants, treatment changes were rare and the proportion of missed/delayed appointments was rather small. The main reasons for delays/cancellations of appointments were anxiety and concern for COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Teuscher M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8572687 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn an effort to contain the effects of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, health care systems worldwide implemented telemedical solutions to overcome staffing, technical, and infrastructural limitations. In Germany, a multitude of telemedical systems are already being used, while new approaches are rapidly being developed in response to the crisis. However, the extent of the current implementation within different health care settings, the user's acceptance and perception, as well as the hindering technical and regulatory obstacles remain unclear.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to assess the current status quo of the availability and routine use of telemedical solutions, user acceptance, and the subjectively perceived burdens on telemedical approaches. Furthermore, we seek to assess the perception of public information quality among professional groups and their preferred communication channels.MethodsA national online survey was conducted on 14 consecutive days in March and April 2020, and distributed to doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals in the German language.ResultsA total of 2827 medical professionals participated in the study. Doctors accounted for 65.6% (n=1855) of the professionals, 29.5% (n=833) were nursing staff, and 4.9% (n=139) were identified as others such as therapeutic staff. A majority of participants rated the significance of telemedicine within the crisis as high (1065/2730, 39%) or neutral (n=720, 26.4%); however, there were significant differences between doctors and nurses (P=.01) as well as between the stationary sector compared to the ambulatory sector (P<.001). Telemedicine was already in routine use for 19.6% (532/2711) of German health care providers and in partial use for 40.2% (n=1090). Participants working in private practices (239/594, 40.2%) or private clinics (23/59, 39.0%) experienced less regulatory or technical obstacles compared to university hospitals (586/1190, 49.2%). A majority of doctors rated the public information quality on COVID-19 as good (942/1855, 50.8%) or very good (213/1855, 11.5%); nurses rated the quality of public information significantly lower (P<.001). Participant's age negatively correlated with the perception of telemedicine's significance (ρ=-0.23; P<.001).ConclusionsTelemedicine has a broad acceptance among German medical professionals. However, to establish telemedical structures within routine care, technical and regulatory burdens must be overcome.

Project description:BackgroundIn the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge.ObjectivePreparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks.MethodsIntensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e‑mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e‑mail through DIVI.ResultsOf 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e‑mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents' prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment.ConclusionEven though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be clear, short (short versions, algorithms) and with free access. E‑mail newsletters, websites or medical journals should continuously report on new evidence syntheses. Professional societies and the governmental institute for infections and public health should be involved in dissemination due to their obvious trustworthiness.