A Remote Parenting Program and Parent and Staff Perspectives: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess impact and implementation of remote delivery of a parenting program following suspension of in-person visits during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: Impact of remote delivery of the Reach Up parenting program on parenting practices was evaluated by randomized trial in Jamaica. Mothers with children aged 5 to 24 months who met 1 of 7 at-risk criteria were enrolled at health centers. Participants were randomly assigned to intervention or control using random number tables generated by a statistician. Intervention comprised a manual for parents with illustrated play activities, phone calls, and short message service messages. The control group received usual care. Parent practices were measured using an adapted Family Care Indicators telephone-administered questionnaire by interviewers unaware of group assignment. Qualitative interviews were conducted with staff and parents in Jamaica and Brazil and staff in Ecuador to identify facilitators and barriers to remote delivery of Reach Up. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-seven participants were assessed at endline (control n = 130; intervention n = 117). Intervention increased parent activities that support child development, effect size 0.34 SD (95% confidence interval 0.03-0.53), and use of praise, odds 2 times higher with intervention. There were no benefits to interactive language or play materials. Qualitative results showed parents appreciated program continuation and felt motivated to help their child, and methods were acceptable to staff. Barriers included poor mobile phone access, difficulty contacting parents, and feedback limitations without in-person contact. CONCLUSIONS: Remote delivery methods have potential to contribute to scaling of parenting programs.

Loneliness and symptom burden in oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Loneliness and social isolation are significant public health problems that are being exacerbated during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Little is known about the associations between loneliness and symptom burden in oncology patients before and during the pandemic. Study purposes include determining the prevalence of loneliness in a sample of oncology patients; evaluating for differences in demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics between lonely and nonlonely patients; and determining which demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics were associated with membership in the lonely group. METHODS: A convenience sample (n = 606) completed online surveys that evaluated the severity of loneliness, social isolation, and common symptoms (ie, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and pain) in oncology patients. Parametric and nonparametric tests were used to evaluate for differences in scores between the lonely and nonlonely groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine risk factors for membership in the loneliness group. RESULTS: Of the 606 patients, 53.0% were categorized in the lonely group. The lonely group reported higher levels of social isolation, as well as higher symptom severity scores for all of the symptoms evaluated. In the multivariate model, being unmarried, having higher levels of social isolation, as well as higher levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms were associated with membership in the lonely group. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest that a significant number of oncology patients are experiencing loneliness, most likely as a result of mandate social distancing and isolation procedures. The symptom burden of these patients is extremely high and warrants clinical evaluation and interventions.

Report of National Brain Tumor Society roundtable workshop on innovating brain tumor clinical trials: building on lessons learned from COVID-19 experience.

On July 24, 2020, a workshop sponsored by the National Brain Tumor Society was held on innovating brain tumor clinical trials based on lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience. Various stakeholders from the brain tumor community participated including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academic and community clinicians, researchers, industry, clinical research organizations, patients and patient advocates, and representatives from the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the National Cancer Institute. This report summarizes the workshop and proposes ways to incorporate lessons learned from COVID-19 to brain tumor clinical trials including the increased use of telemedicine and decentralized trial models as opportunities for practical innovation with potential long-term impact on clinical trial design and implementation.

The state of neuro-oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic: a worldwide assessment.

BACKGROUND: It remains unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed neuro-oncology clinical practice, training, and research efforts. METHODS: We performed an international survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents, April 24-May 17, 2020. We assessed clinical practice and research environments, institutional preparedness and support, and perceived impact on patients. RESULTS: Of 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were US-based and 314 (55%) international. Ninety-four percent of participants reported changes in their clinical practice. Ninety-five percent of respondents converted at least some practice to telemedicine. Ten percent of practitioners felt the need to see patients in person, specifically because of billing concerns and pressure from their institutions. Sixty-seven percent of practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial, including 62% suspending phase III trial enrollments. More than 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk for COVID-19. Seventy-one percent of clinicians feared for their own personal safety or that of their families, specifically because of their clinical duties; 20% had inadequate personal protective equipment. While 69% reported increased stress, 44% received no psychosocial support from their institutions. Thirty-seven percent had salary reductions and 63% of researchers temporarily closed their laboratories. However, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient satisfaction, communication quality, and technology use to deliver care and mediate interactions with other practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has changed treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options. Institutional lack of support created clinician and researcher anxiety. Communication with patients was satisfactory. We make recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward and address the personal challenges of providers and researchers.