The Enduring Effects of COVID for Cancer Care: Learning from Real-Life Clinical Practice.

For three years, COVID-19 has circulated among our communities and around the world, fundamentally changing social interactions, health care systems, and service delivery. For people living with (and receiving treatment for) cancer, pandemic conditions presented significant additional hurdles in an already unstable and shifting environment, including disrupted personal contact with care providers, interrupted access to clinical trials, distanced therapeutic encounters, multiple immune vulnerabilities, and new forms of financial precarity. In a 2020 perspective in this journal, we examined how COVID-19 was reshaping cancer care in the early stages of the pandemic and how these changes might endure into the future. Three years later, and in light of a series of interviews with patients and their caregivers from the United States and Australia conducted during the pandemic, we return to consider the potential legacy effects of the pandemic on cancer care. While some challenges to care provision and survivorship were unforeseen, others accentuated and amplified existing problems experienced by patients, caregivers, and health care providers. Both are likely to have enduring effects in the "post-pandemic" world, raising the importance of focusing on lessons that can be learned for the future.

Experiencing the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Whilst Living With Cancer.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in considerable consequences for many cancer patients, exacerbating pre-existing systemic health system limitations as well as creating new challenges. From socially distanced clinics and the widespread introduction of telehealth, to the halting of clinical trials and the reassessment of what constitutes "essential" treatment, care in oncology has abruptly changed. There is currently limited analysis of cancer patients' experiences of the pandemic and its impacts on illness, wellness, and everyday life. Through semi-structured interviews with 54 people living with cancer during the 2020 phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Australia, we explore how patients experience illness and care in reflecting upon a range of pandemic challenges, including delay, distance, and vulnerability. We find that in some cases, these pandemic conditions redefined the meaning of essential cancer care, reconfigured expectations around clinical trials, constructed new affective distances, and amplified dread and fear for people living with cancer.

Paradoxes of pandemic infection control: Proximity, pace and care within and beyond SARS-CoV-2.

From the adoption of mask-wearing in public settings to the omnipresence of hand-sanitising, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought unprecedented cultural attention to infection prevention and control (IPC) in everyday life. At the same time, the pandemic threat has enlivened and unsettled hospital IPC processes, fracturing confidence, demanding new forms of evidence, and ultimately involving a rapid reassembling of what constitutes safe care. Here, drawing on semi-structured interviews with 63 frontline healthcare workers from two states in Australia, interviewed between September 2020 and March 2021, we illuminate some of the affective dimensions of IPC at a time of rapid change and evolving uncertainty. We track how a collective sense of risk and safety is relationally produced, redefining attitudes and practices around infective risk, and transforming accepted paradigms of care and self-protection. Drawing on Puig de la Bellacasa's formulation, we propose the notion of IPC as a multidimensional matter of care. Highlighting the complex negotiation of space and time in relation to infection control and care illustrates a series of paradoxes, the understanding of which helps illuminate not only how IPC works, in practice, but also what it means to those working on the frontline of the pandemic.

A qualitative study of barriers to antimicrobial stewardship in Indonesian hospitals: governance, competing interests, cost, and structural vulnerability.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the leading global public health threats of the 21st Century. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes have been shown to improve antibiotic use and clinical outcomes in high-income settings, but context-specific evidence is lacking on the value and effectiveness of current AMS programmes in low-resource settings. This study sought to explore context-specific underlying barriers to AMS implementation in Indonesian hospitals with a focus on governance practices and structural vulnerabilities. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with physicians, surgeons, clinical microbiologists, pharmacists, AMS team leaders, hospital managers, medical students, and national AMR stakeholders, and performed a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Based on 51 interviews conducted between January and October 2020, four main barriers to AMS implementation were evident in the participants' experiences: (1) Ineffective resourcing and institutional buy-in regarding mandatory AMS under hospital accreditation; (2) Entangled priorities to generate profits and interprofessional relationships between doctors and hospital managers or AMS leaders; (3) Cost-prohibitive bacterial culture testing and thresholds of national health insurance coverage; (4) Unreliable infrastructures, including microbiology laboratory and surgical facilities, ensuring high antibiotic usage to cover structural vulnerabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Limited progress will be made with implementing AMS in Indonesian hospitals, and in settings with similar structural features, without addressing concerns around governance, competing interests, cost and structural vulnerabilities.

"One minute it's an airborne virus, then it's a droplet virus, and then it's like nobody really knows ": Experiences of pandemic PPE amongst Australian healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has challenged health systems globally. A key controversy has been how to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) using personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: Interviews were performed with 63 HCWs across two states in Australia to explore their experiences of PPE during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Four themes were identified with respect to HCWs' experience of pandemic PPE: 1. Risk, fear and uncertainty: HCWs experienced considerable fear and heightened personal and professional risk, reporting anxiety about the adequacy of PPE and the resultant risk to themselves and their families. 2. Evidence and the ambiguities of evolving guidelines: forms of evidence, its interpretation, and the perception of rapidly changing guidelines heightened distress amongst HCWs. 3. Trust and care: Access to PPE signified organisational support and care, and restrictions on PPE use were considered a breach of trust. 4. Non-compliant practice in the context of social upheaval: despite communication of evidence-based guidelines, an environment of mistrust, personal risk, and organisational uncertainty resulted in variable compliance. CONCLUSION: PPE preferences and usage offer a material signifier of the broader, evolving pandemic context, reflecting HCWs' fear, mistrust, sense of inequity and social solidarity (or breakdown). PPE therefore represents the affective (emotional) demands of professional care, as well as a technical challenge of infection prevention and control. If rationing of PPE is necessary, policymakers need to take account of how HCWs will perceive restrictions or conflicting recommendations and build trust through effective communication (including of uncertainty).

Waves of attention: patterns and themes of international antimicrobial resistance reports, 1945-2020.

This article uses quantitative and qualitative approaches to review 75 years of international policy reports on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Our review of 248 policy reports and expert consultation revealed waves of political attention and repeated reframings of AMR as a policy object. AMR emerged as an object of international policy-making during the 1990s. Until then, AMR was primarily defined as a challenge of human and agricultural domains within the Global North that could be overcome via 'rational' drug use and selective restrictions. While a growing number of reports jointly addressed human and agricultural AMR selection, international organisations (IOs) initially focused on whistleblowing and reviewing data. Since 2000, there has been a marked shift in the ecological and geographic focus of AMR risk scenarios. The Global South and One Health (OH) emerged as foci of AMR reports. Using the deterritorialised language of OH to frame AMR as a Southern risk made global stewardship meaningful to donors and legitimised pressure on low-income and middle-income countries to adopt Northern stewardship and surveillance frameworks. It also enabled IOs to move from whistleblowing to managing governance frameworks for antibiotic stewardship. Although the environmental OH domain remains neglected, realisation of the complexity of necessary interventions has increased the range of topics targeted by international action plans. Investment nonetheless continues to focus on biomedical innovation and tends to leave aside broader socioeconomic issues. Better knowledge of how AMR framings have evolved is key to broadening participation in international stewardship going forward.

Entanglements of affect, space, and evidence in pandemic healthcare: An analysis of Australian healthcare workers' experiences of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to highlight both global interconnectedness and schisms across place, context and peoples. While countries such as Australia have securitised their borders in response to the global spread of disease, flows of information and collective affect continue to permeate these boundaries. Drawing on interviews with Australian healthcare workers, we examine how their experiences of the pandemic are shaped by affect and evidence 'traveling' across time and space. Our analysis points to the limitations of global health crisis responses that focus solely on material risk and spatial separation. Institutional responses must, we suggest, also consider the affective and discursive dimensions of health-related risk environments.

The Paradoxical Effects of COVID-19 on Cancer Care: Current Context and Potential Lasting Impacts.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has fundamentally disrupted the practice of oncology, shifting care onto virtual platforms, rearranging the logistics and economics of running a successful clinical practice and research, and in some contexts, redefining what treatments patients with cancer should and can receive. Since the start of the pandemic in early 2020, there has been considerable emphasis placed on the implications for patients with cancer in terms of their vulnerability to the virus and potential exposure in healthcare settings. But little emphasis has been placed on the significant, and potentially enduring, consequences of COVID-19 for how cancer care is delivered. In this article, we outline the importance of a focus on the effects of COVID-19 for oncology practice during and potentially after the pandemic, focusing on key shifts that are already evident, including: the pivot to online consultations, shifts in access to clinical trial and definitions of "essential care," the changing economics of practice, and the potential legacy effects of rapidly implemented changes in cancer care. COVID-19 is reshaping oncology practice, clinical trials, and delivery of cancer care broadly, and these changes might endure well beyond the short- to mid-term of the active pandemic. Therefore, shifts in practice brought about by the pandemic must be accompanied by improved training and awareness, enhanced infrastructure, and evidence-based support if they are to harness the positives and offset the potential negative consequences of the impacts of COVID-19 on cancer care.

SARS-CoV-2: The viral shedding vs infectivity dilemma.

Since December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected over four million people worldwide. There are multiple reports of prolonged viral shedding in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 but the presence of viral RNA on a test does not necessarily correlate with infectivity. The duration of quarantine required after clinical recovery to definitively prevent transmission is therefore uncertain. In addition, asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission may occur, and infectivity may be highest early after onset of symptoms, meaning that contact tracing, isolation of exposed individuals and social distancing are essential public health measures to prevent further spread. This review aimed to summarise the evidence around viral shedding vs infectivity of SARS-CoV-2.