Adult Hematology/Oncology Patient Perspectives on Telemedicine Highlight Areas of Focus for Future Hybrid Care Models.

Introduction: Telemedicine use expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, but publications analyzing patient perspectives on telemedicine are few. We aimed to study whether patient perspectives offer insights into how best to utilize telemedicine in the future for hematology and cancer care. Methods: A modified Telemedicine Satisfaction and Usefulness Questionnaire (TSUQ) was sent to adult hematology/oncology outpatients at the University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Clinic who had ≥1 prior phone and/or video visit between March 15, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Two focus groups were subsequently conducted with volunteers who completed the survey. We evaluated dichotomized TSUQ items using logistic regression, and focus group data were analyzed qualitatively using constant comparison analysis. Results: Of 7,848 invitations, 588 surveys were completed. Focus groups included 16 survey respondents. Most respondents found telemedicine satisfactory, easy to use, and convenient, with the majority preferring a hybrid approach going forward. Oncology patients, females, and higher income earners endorsed decreased telemedicine satisfaction. Concerns were voiced about fewer in-person interactions, communication gaps, and provider style variability. Discussion: Adult hematology/oncology patients had varied perspectives on telemedicine utilization success based on gender, income, and disease burden, suggesting that a one-size-fits-all approach, as was implemented nearly universally during the COVID-19 pandemic, is not an ideal approach for the long term. Given that telemedicine use is likely to remain in some form in most centers, our findings suggest that a nuanced and tailored approach for some patient subgroups and using feedback from patients will make implementation more effective.

Price Comparison of Human and Veterinary Formulations of Common Medications.

This cross-sectional study compares prices of commonly prescribed medications used to treat both humans and pets.

Telehealth in cancer care during COVID-19: disparities by age, race/ethnicity, and residential status.

PURPOSE: Telehealth may remain an integral part of cancer survivorship care after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While telehealth may reduce travel/waiting times and costs for many patients, it may also create new barriers that could exacerbate care disparities in historically underserved populations, manifesting as differences in overall care participation, and in differential video versus phone use for telehealth. METHODS: We reviewed visits by cancer survivors between January and December 2020 at a designated cancer center in Minnesota. We used descriptive statistics, data visualization, and generalized estimating equation logistic regression models to compare visit modalities and trends over time by age, urban/rural status, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 159,301 visits, including 33,242 telehealth visits, older and rural-dwelling individuals were underrepresented in telehealth compared with in-person care. Non-Hispanic White individuals, those aged 18-69 years, and urban residents used video for > 50% of their telehealth visits. In contrast, those aged ≥ 70 years, rural residents, and most patient groups of color used video for only 33-43% of their telehealth visits. Video use increased with time for everyone, but relative differences in telehealth modalities persisted. Visits of Black/African American patients temporarily fell in spring/summer 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore reduced uptake of telehealth, especially video, among potentially vulnerable patient populations. Future research should evaluate reasons for differential telehealth utilization and whether visit modality (in-person versus video versus phone) affects cancer outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: A long-term cancer care model with integrated telehealth elements needs to account for specific barriers for vulnerable populations.

The New Normal? Patient Satisfaction and Usability of Telemedicine in Breast Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine was adopted to minimize exposure risks for patients and staff during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This study measured patient satisfaction and telemedicine usability in breast cancer care. METHODS: Adult breast cancer patients who had a telemedicine visit at a single academic institution (with surgical, radiation, or medical oncology) from 15 June 2020 to 4 September 2020 were surveyed anonymously. Patient and cancer characteristics were collected, and patient satisfaction and telemedicine usability were assessed using a modified Telehealth Usability Questionnaire with a 7-point Likert scale. Associations of satisfaction and usability with patient characteristics were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Of 203 patients who agreed to be contacted, 78 responded, yielding a response rate of 38%. The median age of the respondents was 63 years (range 25-83 years). The majority lived in an urban area (61%), were white (92%), and saw a medical oncologist (62%). The median patient satisfaction score was 5.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4.25-6.25). The median telemedicine usability score was 5.6 (IQR 4.4-6.2). A strong positive correlation was seen between satisfaction and usability, with a Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) of 0.80 (p < 0.001). Satisfaction and usability scores did not vary significantly according to patient age, race, location of residence, insurance status, previous visit commute time, oncology specialty seen, prior telemedicine visits, or whether patients were actively receiving cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer patients were satisfied with telemedicine and found it usable. Patient satisfaction and telemedicine usability should not limit the use of telemedicine in future post-pandemic breast cancer care.

Emotional health concerns of oncology physicians in the United States: Fallout during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer care is significantly impacted by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Our objective was to evaluate the early effects of the pandemic on the emotional well-being of oncology providers across the United States and explore factors associated with anxiety and depression symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to United States cancer-care physicians recruited over a two-week period (3/27/2020-4/10/2020) using snowball-convenience sampling through social media. Symptoms of anxiety and depression were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4). RESULTS: Of 486 participants, 374 (77.0%) completed the PHQ-4: median age was 43 years; 63.2% female; all oncologic specialties were represented. The rates of anxiety and depression symptoms were 62.0% and 23.5%, respectively. Demographic factors associated with anxiety included female sex, younger age, and less time in clinical practice. Perception of inadequate personal protective equipment (68.6% vs. 57.4%, p = 0.03) and practicing in a state with more COVID-19 cases (65.8% vs. 51.1%, p = 0.01) were associated with anxiety symptoms. Factors significantly associated with both anxiety and depression included the degree to which COVID-19 has interfered with the ability to provide treatment to cancer patients and concern that patients will not receive the level of care needed for non-COVID-19 illness (all p-values <0.01). CONCLUSION: The perceived degree of interference with clinical practice along with personal concerns about COVID-19 were significantly associated with both anxiety and depression among oncology physicians in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight factors associated with and sources of psychological distress to be addressed to protect the well-being of oncology physicians.

Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient During COVID-19: An Expert Consensus Document From the ACC Cardio-Oncology and Imaging Councils.

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Cardio-Oncology and Imaging Councils of the American College of Cardiology offers recommendations to clinicians regarding the cardiovascular care of cardio-oncology patients in this expert consensus statement. Cardio-oncology patients-individuals with an active or prior cancer history and with or at risk of cardiovascular disease-are a rapidly growing population who are at increased risk of infection, and experiencing severe and/or lethal complications by COVID-19. Recommendations for optimizing screening and monitoring visits to detect cardiac dysfunction are discussed. In addition, judicious use of multimodality imaging and biomarkers are proposed to identify myocardial, valvular, vascular, and pericardial involvement in cancer patients. The difficulties of diagnosing the etiology of cardiovascular complications in patients with cancer and COVID-19 are outlined, along with weighing the advantages against risks of exposure, with the modification of existing cardiovascular treatments and cardiotoxicity surveillance in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sources of Medical Information for Oncology Physicians During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results From a National Cross-Sectional Survey.

Because the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has completely transformed the accepted norms and approaches to cancer care delivery in the United States, we sought to understand the sources of medical information that oncology physicians seek and trust. We recruited 486 oncology physicians to an anonymous cross-sectional online survey through social media from March 27, 2020, to April 10, 2020, with 79.2% reporting their sources of medical information during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found a diverse array of reported sources for COVID-19 information that most commonly included professional societies (90.7%), hospital or institutional communications (88.6%), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (69.9%); however, trust in these sources of information varied widely, with professional societies being the most trusted source. These results highlight the important role that professional societies, hospitals, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention play in ensuring dissemination of consistent, high-quality practice recommendations for oncology physicians.

Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States: Results From a National Physician Cross-sectional Survey.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly impacted health care delivery across the United States, including treatment of cancer. We aim to describe the determinants of treatment plan changes from the perspective of oncology physicians across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Participants were recruited to an anonymous cross-sectional online survey of oncology physicians (surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists) using social media from March 27 to April 10, 2020. Physician demographics, practice characteristics, and cancer treatment decisions were collected. RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 411 physicians: 241 (58.6%) surgeons, 106 (25.8%) medical oncologists, and 64 (15.6%) radiation oncologists. In all, 38.0% were practicing in states with 1001 to 5000 confirmed COVID-19 cases as of April 3, 2020, and 37.2% were in states with >5000 cases. Most physicians (N=285; 70.0% of surgeons, 64.4% of medical oncologists, and 73.4% of radiation oncologists) had altered cancer treatment plans. Most respondents were concerned about their patients' COVID-19 exposure risks, but this was the primary driver for treatment alterations only for medical oncologists. For surgeons, the primary driver for treatment alterations was conservation of personal protective equipment, institutional mandates, and external society recommendations. Radiation oncologists were primarily driven by operational changes such as visitor restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a majority of oncologists to alter their treatment plans, but the primary motivators for changes differed by oncologic specialty. This has implications for reinstitution of standard cancer treatment, which may occur at differing time points by treatment modality.