"Will it Work as Well on Zoom?" A Natural Experiment During the Covid-19 Pandemic of Delivering Parenting Groups Via Video Conferencing or in Person.

While rates of child maltreatment increased during the Covid-19-pandemic, face-to-face interventions to support families got difficult to carry out due to restrictions. Meanwhile, many services do not have access to parenting programs designed for digital or remote delivery. A solution employed by some services was to use video conferencing (VC) to deliver their regular parenting programs. This study examined the effectiveness of the universal group-based parenting program ABC offered through VC instead of on-site meetings during the pandemic. Pre and post measurements were collected from 469 parents participating in either 1) ABC with VC meetings only, 2) on-site meetings only, or 3) blended - a combination of VC and on-site sessions. In addition, 74 group leaders completed a survey about their experiences of VC groups. Analyses showed general improvements in parent practices and child conduct over time, but no differences in effectiveness depending on the format of the parent group (VC, blended, or on-site). Qualitative analyses of group leaders' experiences revealed four key-themes pertaining to both challenges (e.g., concerns about parents' ability to benefit and learn parenting skills) and benefits (e.g., reaching parents who would not have been able to attend physical meetings) of VC groups. Overall, this study showed no significant differences in outcomes between the VC, blended, or on-site format of delivery. There are however limitations of this trial, and results should be considered preliminary. Effectiveness and potential negative consequences of replacing interventions intended to be delivered on-site with VC alternatives need to be further investigated in future trials.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Nurse Specialists and Patients With Cancer : A Pan-Specialty Cross-sectional Survey

Purpose/Aims Uptake and delivery of cancer services across the United Kingdom have been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to understand the impact of the pandemic on the working practices of clinical nurse specialists and their patient interactions across different cancer specialties. Design We performed a cross-sectional survey exploring nurses' experiences of delivering care during the pandemic, as well as their perceptions of the concerns that cancer patients were experiencing. Methods Clinical nurse specialists working in London cancer services were invited to complete an online questionnaire. Nurses' experiences and their perceptions of patients' concerns were analyzed descriptively. Results Fifty-four nurses participated. Almost half had been redeployed to other clinical areas during the pandemic (n = 19). COVID-19 discussions added 5 to 10 minutes on average to most consultations, with nurses either working longer/unpaid hours (34%) or spending less time talking to patients about cancer (39%) to deal with this. Approximately 50% of nurses would have liked additional information and support from their hospital. Conclusions Clinical nurse specialist time and resources have been stretched during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals need to work with nursing staff to ensure the specific information needs of cancer patients are being met.

Estimated impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer services and excess 1-year mortality in people with cancer and multimorbidity: near real-time data on cancer care, cancer deaths and a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care services and overall (direct and indirect) excess deaths in people with cancer. METHODS: We employed near real-time weekly data on cancer care to determine the adverse effect of the pandemic on cancer services. We also used these data, together with national death registrations until June 2020 to model deaths, in excess of background (pre-COVID-19) mortality, in people with cancer. Background mortality risks for 24 cancers with and without COVID-19-relevant comorbidities were obtained from population-based primary care cohort (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) on 3 862 012 adults in England. RESULTS: Declines in urgent referrals (median=-70.4%) and chemotherapy attendances (median=-41.5%) to a nadir (lowest point) in the pandemic were observed. By 31 May, these declines have only partially recovered; urgent referrals (median=-44.5%) and chemotherapy attendances (median=-31.2%). There were short-term excess death registrations for cancer (without COVID-19), with peak relative risk (RR) of 1.17 at week ending on 3 April. The peak RR for all-cause deaths was 2.1 from week ending on 17 April. Based on these findings and recent literature, we modelled 40% and 80% of cancer patients being affected by the pandemic in the long-term. At 40% affected, we estimated 1-year total (direct and indirect) excess deaths in people with cancer as between 7165 and 17 910, using RRs of 1.2 and 1.5, respectively, where 78% of excess deaths occured in patients with ≥1 comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Dramatic reductions were detected in the demand for, and supply of, cancer services which have not fully recovered with lockdown easing. These may contribute, over a 1-year time horizon, to substantial excess mortality among people with cancer and multimorbidity. It is urgent to understand how the recovery of general practitioner, oncology and other hospital services might best mitigate these long-term excess mortality risks.

COVID-19 in cancer patients on systemic anti-cancer therapies: outcomes from the CAPITOL (COVID-19 Cancer PatIenT Outcomes in North London) cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are hypothesised to be at increased risk of contracting COVID-19, leading to changes in treatment pathways in those treated with systemic anti-cancer treatments (SACT). This study investigated the outcomes of patients receiving SACT to assess whether they were at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 or having more severe outcomes. METHODS: Data was collected from all patients receiving SACT in two cancer centres as part of CAPITOL (COVID-19 Cancer PatIenT Outcomes in North London). The primary outcome was the effect of clinical characteristics on the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection in patients on SACT. We used univariable and multivariable models to analyse outcomes, adjusting for age, gender and comorbidities. RESULTS: A total of 2871 patients receiving SACT from 2 March to 31 May 2020 were analysed; 68 (2.4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Cancer patients receiving SACT were more likely to die if they contracted COVID-19 than those who did not [adjusted (adj.) odds ratio (OR) 9.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.73-16.9]. Receiving chemotherapy increased the risk of developing COVID-19 (adj. OR 2.99; 95% CI = 1.72-5.21), with high dose chemotherapy significantly increasing risk (adj. OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.35-6.48), as did the presence of comorbidities (adj. OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.19-4.38), and having a respiratory or intrathoracic neoplasm (adj. OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.04-4.36). Receiving targeted treatment had a protective effect (adj. OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.30-0.95). Treatment intent (curative versus palliative), hormonal- or immunotherapy and solid versus haematological cancers had no significant effect on risk. CONCLUSION: Patients on SACT are more likely to die if they contract COVID-19. Those on chemotherapy, particularly high dose chemotherapy, are more likely to contract COVID-19, while targeted treatment appears to be protective.