Dataset Information

Childhood cancer survivorship care during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international report of practice implications and provider concerns.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Long-term follow-up (LTFU) care is essential to optimise health outcomes in childhood cancer survivors (CCS). We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LTFU services and providers.

Methods

A COVID-19 working group within the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group (IGHG) distributed a questionnaire to LTFU service providers in 37 countries across Europe, Asia, North America, Central/South America, and Australia. The questionnaire assessed how care delivery methods changed during the pandemic and respondents' level of worry about the pandemic's impact on LTFU care delivery, their finances, their health, and that of their family and friends.

Results

Among 226 institutions, providers from 178 (79%) responded. Shortly after the initial outbreak, 42% of LTFU clinics closed. Restrictions during the pandemic resulted in fewer in-person consultations and an increased use of telemedicine, telephone, and email consultations. The use of a risk assessment to prioritise the method of LTFU consultation for individual CCS increased from 12 to 47%. While respondents anticipated in-person consultations to remain the primary method for LTFU service delivery, they expected significantly increased use of telemedicine and telephone consultations after the pandemic. On average, respondents reported highest levels of worry about psychosocial well-being of survivors.

Conclusions

The pandemic necessitated changes in LTFU service delivery, including greater use of virtual LTFU care and risk-stratification to identify CCS that need in-person evaluations.

Implications for cancer survivors

Increased utilisation of virtual LTFU care and risk stratification is likely to persist post-pandemic.

SUBMITTER: van den Oever SR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8753338 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is a concern that the Oncology Care Model (OCM), a voluntary bundled payment program, may incentivize mergers and acquisitions among physician practices leading to reduced competition and price increases. These concerns are heightened if OCM is preferentially adopted in competitive health care markets because it could result in reduced competition, but little is known about the characteristics of markets where OCM is adopted. OBJECTIVE:To measure the association between regional market competition among medical oncologists with the initial adoption of OCM. RESEARCH DESIGN:The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), a measure of competition, was calculated for hospital referral regions (HRRs) using secondary data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The relationship between HHI and OCM adoption was assessed using a 2-part regression model adjusting for the market-level number of practices, physician density, average practice size, sociodemographic characteristics, and medical resources. A count model on all HRRs was also estimated to assess an overall effect. SUBJECTS:A total of 10,788 physicians in 3,537 practices who billed Medicare for oncology services in 2015. RESULTS:OCM was adopted in 114 (37%) of the 306 HRRs. We found that practices in competitive health care markets were more likely to adopt OCM than in noncompetitive markets. Two-part regression analysis indicated a nonlinear relationship between HHI and OCM adoption. Average practice size, number of practices in an HRR, and the hospital bed rate were positively associated with adoption, whereas the rate of full-time equivalent hospital employees to 1000 residents was negatively associated with adoption. CONCLUSIONS:OCM adoption was higher in HRRs with greater competition. Careful monitoring of market-level changes among OCM adopters should be undertaken to ensure that the benefits of the OCM outweigh the negative consequences of possible changes in competition.

Project description:BACKGROUND & AIMS:Low rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance are primarily due to provider-related process failures. However, few studies have evaluated primary care provider (PCP) practice patterns, attitudes, and barriers to HCC surveillance at academic tertiary care referral centers. METHODS:We conducted a web-based survey of PCPs at 2 tertiary care referral centers (133 providers) from June 2017 through December 2017. The survey was adapted from pretested surveys and included questions about practice patterns, attitudes, and barriers to HCC surveillance. We used the Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests to identify factors associated with adherence to HCC surveillance recommendations, for categoric and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS:We obtained a provider-level response rate of 75% and clinic-level response rate of 100% (133 providers). Whereas most PCPs performed HCC surveillance themselves, one-third deferred surveillance to subspecialists and referred patients to a hepatology clinic. Providers believed the combination of ultrasound and ?-fetoprotein analysis to be highly effective for early stage tumor detection and reported using the combination for assessment of most patients. However, PCPs were more likely to use computed tomography- or magnetic resonance imaging-based surveillance for patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis or decompensated cirrhosis. Most providers believed HCC surveillance to be efficacious for early tumor detection and increasing survival. However, they desired increased high-quality evidence to characterize screening benefits and harms. Providers expressed notable misconceptions about HCC surveillance, including the role for measurement of liver enzyme levels in HCC surveillance and cost effectiveness of surveillance in patients without cirrhosis. They also reported barriers, including not being up to date on HCC surveillance recommendations, limited time in the clinic, and competing clinical concerns. CONCLUSIONS:In a web-based survey, PCPs reported misconceptions and barriers to HCC surveillance. This indicates the need for interventions, including provider education, to improve HCC surveillance effectiveness in clinical practice.