Rapid adaptation of cancer screening practices during COVID-19: A multi-state qualitative study.

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic required primary care practices to rapidly adapt cancer screening procedures to comply with changing guidelines and policies. Objective: This study sought to: 1) identify cancer screening barriers and facilitators during the COVID-19 pandemic; 2) describe cancer screening adaptations; and 3) provide recommendations. Study design: A qualitative study was conducted (n= 42) with primary care staff. Individual interviews were conducted through videoconference from August 2020 - April 2021 and recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes using NVivo 12 Plus. Setting: Primary care practices included federally qualified health centers, tribal health centers, rural health clinics, hospital/health system-owned, and academic medical centers located across ten states including urban (55%) and rural (45%) sites. Population studied: Primary care staff included physicians (n=13), residents (n=10), advanced practice providers (n=9), and administrators (n=10). Outcome measures: The interviews assessed perceptions about cancer screening barriers and facilitators, necessary adaptations, and future recommendations. Results: Barriers to cancer screening included delays in primary and specialty care, staff shortages, lack of personal protective equipment, patient hesitancy to receive in-person care, postal service delays for mail-home testing, COVID-19 travel restrictions (for Mexico-US border-crossing patients) and organizational policies (e.g., required COVID-19 testing prior to screening). Facilitators included better care coordination and collaboration due to the pandemic and more time during telehealth visits to discuss cancer screening compared to in-person visits. Adaptations included delayed screening, patient triage (e.g., prioritizing patients overdue for screening), telehealth visits to discuss cancer screening, mail-home testing, coordinating cancer screenings (e.g., providing fecal immunochemical test materials during cervical cancer screening) and same-day cancer screening. Recommendations included more public health education about the importance of cancer screening during COVID-19, more mail-home testing, and expanded healthcare access (e.g., weekend clinic) to address patient backlogs for cancer screening. Conclusions: Primary care staff developed innovative strategies to adapt cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unresolved challenges (e.g., patient backlogs) will require additional implementation stra.

Financial hardship and mental health among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the US COVID-19 Household Impact Survey.

Purpose: Our objective was to (1) identify associated characteristics of financial hardship (FH), and (2) evaluate associations of FH with mental health symptoms among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Using data from the nationally representative COVID-19 Impact Survey, we defined cancer survivors as those with a self-reported diagnosis of cancer (n = 854,7.6%). We defined FH using the following question: "Based on your current financial situation, how would you pay for an unexpected $400 expense?" Multivariable Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) to identify associated characteristics of FH and associations of FH with mental health symptoms among cancer survivors overall and by age (18-59 years/60+ years). Results: Forty-one percent of cancer survivors reported FH, with 58% in 18-59 and 33% in 60+ year old respondents. Compared to cancer survivors aged 60+ years, those aged 30-44 (aPR:1.74,95% CI:1.35-2.24), and 45-59 years (aPR:1.60,95% CI:1.27-1.99) were more likely to report FH. Compared to non-Hispanic(NH)-White cancer survivors, NH-Black cancer survivors had a 56% higher prevalence of FH (aPR:1.56; 95% CI: 1.23-1.97). Among 60+ years aged cancer survivors, NH-Black (aPR:1.80; 95% CI: 1.32-2.45) and NH-Asian cancer survivors (aPR:10.70,95% CI:5.6-20.7) were more likely to experience FH compared to their NH-White counterparts. FH was associated with feeling anxious (aPR:1.51,95% CI:1.11-2.05), depressed (aPR:1.66,95% CI:1.25-2.22), and hopeless (aPR:1.84,95% CI:1.38-2.44). Conclusion: Minoritized communities, younger adults, and cancer survivors with low socioeconomic status had a higher burden of FH, which was associated with feelings of anxiety, depression, and hopelessness.

Financial hardship and mental health among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the US COVID-19 Household Impact Survey

Purpose Our objective was to (1) identify associated characteristics of financial hardship (FH), and (2) evaluate associations of FH with mental health symptoms among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Using data from the nationally representative COVID-19 Impact Survey, we defined cancer survivors as those with a self-reported diagnosis of cancer (n = 854,7.6%). We defined FH using the following question: “Based on your current financial situation, how would you pay for an unexpected $400 expense?” Multivariable Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) to identify associated characteristics of FH and associations of FH with mental health symptoms among cancer survivors overall and by age (18–59 years/60+ years). Results Forty-one percent of cancer survivors reported FH, with 58% in 18–59 and 33% in 60+ year old respondents. Compared to cancer survivors aged 60+ years, those aged 30–44 (aPR:1.74,95% CI:1.35–2.24), and 45–59 years (aPR:1.60,95% CI:1.27–1.99) were more likely to report FH. Compared to non–Hispanic(NH)–White cancer survivors, NH–Black cancer survivors had a 56% higher prevalence of FH (aPR:1.56;95% CI: 1.23–1.97). Among 60+ years aged cancer survivors, NH–Black (aPR:1.80;95% CI: 1.32–2.45) and NH–Asian cancer survivors (aPR:10.70,95% CI:5.6–20.7) were more likely to experience FH compared to their NH–White counterparts. FH was associated with feeling anxious (aPR:1.51,95% CI:1.11–2.05), depressed (aPR:1.66,95% CI:1.25–2.22), and hopeless (aPR:1.84,95% CI:1.38–2.44). Conclusion Minoritized communities, younger adults, and cancer survivors with low socioeconomic status had a higher burden of FH, which was associated with feelings of anxiety, depression, and hopelessness.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among a national sample of United States adults ages 18-45: A cross-sectional study

To assess how the COVID-19 pandemic affected catch-up HPV vaccination among age-eligible adults (ages 18-45). The current study leverages a national, cross-sectional sample of US adults ages 18-45 years to assess the prevalence and determinants of COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions to catch-up HPV vaccination in 2021. The sample was restricted to adults intending to receive the HPV vaccine. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the probability of 1) pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption and 2) uncertainty about pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption. Report of ‘no pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption’ served as the reference category. Among adults intending to get the HPV vaccine (n=1,683), 8.6% reported pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption, 14.7% reported uncertainty about vaccination disruption, and 76.7% reported no disruption. Factors associated with higher odds of pandemic-related vaccination disruption included non-English language preference (OR: 3.20;95% CI: 1.99-5.13), being a parent/guardian (OR: 1.77;95% CI: 1.18-2.66), having at least one healthcare visit in the past year (OR: 1.97;95% CI: 1.10-3.53), being up-to-date on the tetanus vaccine (OR: 1.81;95% CI: 1.19-2.75), and being a cancer survivor (OR: 2.57;95% CI: 1.52-4.34). Catch-up HPV vaccination for age-eligible adults is a critical public health strategy for reducing HPV-related cancers. While a small percentage of adults reported pandemic-related disruptions to HPV vaccination, certain adults (e.g., individuals with a non-English language preference and cancer survivors) were more likely to report a disruption. Interventions may be needed that increase accessibility of catch-up HPV vaccination among populations with reduced healthcare access during the pandemic.

Individual-level factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among U.S. patients with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is a major public health concern in the US. Cancer patients are especially vulnerable to adverse COVID-19 outcomes and require targeted prevention efforts against COVID-19. METHODS: We used longitudinal survey data from patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center to identify attitudes, beliefs, and sociodemographic factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among cancer patients. Patients with confirmed invasive cancer diagnosis through Cancer Registry data were asked about vaccine acceptance through the question "Now that a COVID-19 vaccine is available, are you likely to get it?" and dichotomized into high accepters (already received it, would get it when available) and low accepters (waiting for a doctor to recommend it, waiting until more people received it, not likely to get it). RESULTS: Most patients (86.8% of 5,814) were high accepters of the COVID-19 vaccine. High accepters had more confidence in the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine than low accepters. Multivariable logistic regression showed older individuals (70-89 vs.18-49: OR:2.57, 95% CI:1.33-4.86), those with greater perceived severity of COVID-19 infection (very serious vs. not at all serious: OR:2.55, 95% CI:1.76-3.70), practicing more risk mitigation behaviors (per one standard deviation OR:1.75, 95% CI:1.57-1.95), and history of receiving the flu shot versus not (OR:6.56, 95% CI:5.25-8.20) had higher odds of vaccine acceptance. Individuals living with more than one other person (vs. alone: OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.79) and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged (per 10 percentile points: OR: 0.89, 95 %CI: 0.85, 0.93) had lower odds of reporting vaccine acceptance. CONCLUSION: Most patients with cancer have or would receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Those who are less likely to accept the vaccine have more concerns regarding effectiveness and side effects, are younger, more socioeconomically disadvantaged, and have lower perceptions of COVID-19 severity.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Women's Health Care Access: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: There has been limited study of how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected women's health care access. Our study aims to examine the prevalence and correlates of COVID-19-related disruptions to (1) primary care; (2) gynecologic care; and (3) preventive health care among women. Materials and Methods: We recruited 4,000 participants from a probability-based online panel. We conducted four multinomial logistic regression models, one for each of the study outcomes: (1) primary care access; (2) gynecologic care access; (3) patient-initiated disruptions to preventive visits; and (4) provider-initiated disruptions to preventive visits. Results: The sample included 1,285 women. One in four women (28.5%) reported that the pandemic affected their primary care access. Sexual minority women (SMW) (odds ratios [OR]: 1.67; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.19-2.33) had higher odds of reporting pandemic-related effects on primary care access compared to women identifying as heterosexual. Cancer survivors (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.25-3.42) had higher odds of reporting pandemic-related effects on primary care access compared to women without a cancer history. About 16% of women reported that the pandemic affected their gynecologic care access. Women with a cancer history (OR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.35-4.08) had higher odds of reporting pandemic-related effects on gynecologic care compared to women without a cancer history. SMW were more likely to report patient- and provider-initiated delays in preventive health care. Other factors that affected health care access included income, insurance status, and having a usual source of care. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted women's health care access and disproportionately affected access among SMW and women with a cancer history, suggesting that targeted interventions may be needed to ensure adequate health care access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Individual-level factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among U.S. patients with cancer

Introduction Vaccine hesitancy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is a major public health concern in the US. Cancer patients are especially vulnerable to adverse COVID-19 outcomes and require targeted prevention efforts against COVID-19. Methods We used longitudinal survey data from patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center to identify attitudes, beliefs, and sociodemographic factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among cancer patients. Patients with confirmed invasive cancer diagnosis through Cancer Registry data were asked about vaccine acceptance through the question “Now that a COVID-19 vaccine is available, are you likely to get it?” and dichotomized into high accepters (already received it, would get it when available) and low accepters (waiting for a doctor to recommend it, waiting until more people received it, not likely to get it). Results Most patients (86.8% of 5,814) were high accepters of the COVID-19 vaccine. High accepters had more confidence in the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine than low accepters. Multivariable logistic regression showed older individuals (70-89 vs.18-49: OR:2.57, 95% CI:1.33-4.86), those with greater perceived severity of COVID-19 infection (very serious vs. not at all serious: OR:2.55, 95% CI:1.76-3.70), practicing more risk mitigation behaviors (per one standard deviation OR:1.75, 95% CI:1.57-1.95), and history of receiving the flu shot versus not (OR:6.56, 95% CI:5.25-8.20) had higher odds of vaccine acceptance. Individuals living with more than one other person (vs. alone: OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.79) and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged (per 10 percentile points: OR: 0.89, 95%CI: 0.85, 0.93) had lower odds of reporting vaccine acceptance. Conclusion Most patients with cancer have or would receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Those who are less likely to accept the vaccine have more concerns regarding effectiveness and side effects, are younger, more socioeconomically disadvantaged, and have lower perceptions of COVID-19 severity.

Food Insecurity Disparities and Mental Health Impacts Among Cancer Survivors During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: Food insecurity can negatively impact adherence and receipt of high-quality cancer care. The purpose of the study was to (1) compare the prevalence of COVID-19-associated food insecurity by cancer history and (2) examine determinants associated with COVID-19-related food insecurity among cancer survivors. Methods: We used nationally representative data from the 2020 COVID-19 Household Impact Survey (n=10,760). Our primary exposure was participants' self-report of a cancer diagnosis (n=854, 7.1%). Primary outcomes of food insecurity were categorized by the following questions: "We worried our food would run out before we got money to buy more" or "The food that we bought just didn't last, and we didn't have money to get more"; respondents were categorized as food insecure if they chose often true or sometimes true. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to identify demographic determinants of food insecurity among cancer survivors. Results: Thirty-two percent of cancer survivors were food insecure. Cancer survivors 30-44 years of age and those ≥60 years of age were more likely to report being food insecure compared to respondents without a history of cancer, respectively (30-44 years, 59.9% vs. 41.2% p=0.01, ≥60 years 27.2% vs. 20.2%, p=0.01). Cancer survivors without a high school diploma were more likely to report food insecurity compared to adults with no history of cancer (87.0% vs. 64.1%, p=0.001). In multivariable models, uninsured cancer survivors (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] aPR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.46-3.92) and those on Medicaid (aPR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.40-3.17) were also more likely to report being food insecure. Conclusion: Food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic is vast, but disparities persist. Among cancer survivors, differences in food insecurity were observed by age and socio economic status. Cancer survivors experiencing food insecurity more frequently reported mental health symptoms of depression, loneliness, and hopelessness compared to those who were food secure.

COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Among US Adults With Vision or Hearing Disabilities.

Importance: Despite persistent care delivery inequities, limited studies have assessed COVID-19 vaccination rates among adults with vision or hearing disabilities. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of and factors in COVID-19 vaccination among US adults with vision or hearing disabilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed data from adults who participated in the US Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey from April 2021 through March 2022. The survey assessed COVID-19 vaccine initiation, vaccine series completion, and determinants of health care access, including demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and social determinants of health. Exposures: Vision disability (serious difficulty seeing even with eyeglasses or blindness) and hearing disability (serious difficulty hearing even with a hearing aid or deafness). Main Outcomes and Measures: First dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Adjusted estimated probabilities and 95% CIs of COVID-19 vaccine initiation were calculated using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for survey week, demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and social determinants of health. Results: In this study of 916 085 US adults (weighted population, 192 719 992; mean [SD] age, 54.0 [15.9] years; 52.0% women), most participants had initiated the COVID-19 vaccine series (82.7%). Adults with serious difficulty seeing (mean difference, -6.3%; 95% CI, -7.5% to -5.1%; P < .001) and blindness (mean difference, -20.1%; 95% CI, -25.1% to -15.0%; P < .001) had lower vaccination rates compared with adults with little to no vision impairment. Adults with serious difficulty hearing (mean difference, -2.1%; 95% CI, -3.5% to -0.7%; P = .003) and deafness (mean difference, -17.7%; 95% CI, -21.8% to -13.6%; P < .001) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no hearing impairment. Controlling for other factors, adults with blindness (mean difference, -6.3%; 95% CI, -11.1% to -1.5%; P = .009) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no vision impairment. Controlling for other factors, adults with deafness (mean difference, -5.5%; 95% CI, -9.2% to -1.9%; P = .003) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no hearing impairment. Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COVID-19 vaccine initiation is lower among adults with vision or hearing disabilities compared with adults without disabilities; this information may inform initiatives to promote equitable and accessible vaccination. Additional research may be needed to monitor COVID-19 vaccination disparities among adults with vision or hearing disabilities and to address disparities.

Burden of Food Insecurity and Mental Health Symptoms among Adults with Cardiometabolic Conditions during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Our study objectives were to (1) identify the national prevalence and patterns of food insecurity among adults with and without a history of CMCs and (2) determine associations between food insecurity and mental health outcomes among adults with CMCs during the early COVID-19 pandemic period (April-June 2020). We computed prevalence ratios with Poisson regression using the robust estimation of standard errors to identify disparities in the report of food insecurity across demographic groups and by CMC history. Among adults with CMCs, we estimated associations between food insecurity and self-reported mental health symptoms using multinomial logistic regression. Overall, people with CMCs were more likely to be older, White, without employment in the past 7 days, and from the South or an urban environment. We found that the determinants of food insecurity among individuals with cardiometabolic conditions include having: <60 years of age, female sex, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, an educational degree lower than a baccalaureate, a household income of <$100,000, and either Medicaid, Indian Health Insurance, or no insurance. Individuals with CMCs and food insecurity also had significantly higher odds of adverse mental health symptoms. The continued clinical screening of food insecurity and mental health, as well as public health interventions, targeted toward individuals with CMCs, should be prioritized as we move through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Strategies and Lessons Learned During Cleaning of Data From Research Panel Participants: Cross-sectional Web-Based Health Behavior Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of web-based methods to collect population-based health behavior data has burgeoned over the past two decades. Researchers have used web-based platforms and research panels to study a myriad of topics. Data cleaning prior to statistical analysis of web-based survey data is an important step for data integrity. However, the data cleaning processes used by research teams are often not reported. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this manuscript are to describe the use of a systematic approach to clean the data collected via a web-based platform from panelists and to share lessons learned with other research teams to promote high-quality data cleaning process improvements. METHODS: Data for this web-based survey study were collected from a research panel that is available for scientific and marketing research. Participants (N=4000) were panelists recruited either directly or through verified partners of the research panel, were aged 18 to 45 years, were living in the United States, had proficiency in the English language, and had access to the internet. Eligible participants completed a health behavior survey via Qualtrics. Informed by recommendations from the literature, our interdisciplinary research team developed and implemented a systematic and sequential plan to inform data cleaning processes. This included the following: (1) reviewing survey completion speed, (2) identifying consecutive responses, (3) identifying cases with contradictory responses, and (4) assessing the quality of open-ended responses. Implementation of these strategies is described in detail, and the Checklist for E-Survey Data Integrity is offered as a tool for other investigators. RESULTS: Data cleaning procedures resulted in the removal of 1278 out of 4000 (31.95%) response records, which failed one or more data quality checks. First, approximately one-sixth of records (n=648, 16.20%) were removed because respondents completed the survey unrealistically quickly (ie, <10 minutes). Next, 7.30% (n=292) of records were removed because they contained evidence of consecutive responses. A total of 4.68% (n=187) of records were subsequently removed due to instances of conflicting responses. Finally, a total of 3.78% (n=151) of records were removed due to poor-quality open-ended responses. Thus, after these data cleaning steps, the final sample contained 2722 responses, representing 68.05% of the original sample. CONCLUSIONS: Examining data integrity and promoting transparency of data cleaning reporting is imperative for web-based survey research. Ensuring a high quality of data both prior to and following data collection is important. Our systematic approach helped eliminate records flagged as being of questionable quality. Data cleaning and management procedures should be reported more frequently, and systematic approaches should be adopted as standards of good practice in this type of research.

Food Insecurity, Financial Hardship, and Mental Health Among Multiple Asian American Ethnic Groups: Findings from the 2020 COVID-19 Household Impact Survey.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely impacted the financial and mental well-being of U.S. adults, however, Asian American (AA)-specific data are lacking, particularly disaggregated by AA ethnicity. Our objective was to evaluate food insecurity (FI), financial hardship, and mental health among disaggregated AA ethnic groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We used data from the COVID-19 Household Impact Survey, a sample of 10,760 U.S. adults weighted to reflect the U.S. population (weighted n: 418,209,893). AA ethnic categories were based on self-report (n=312, 5.1%; weighted n: 21,143,079) and provided as follows: Chinese American, South Asian, Filipino+Vietnamese, and Japanese+Korean. We estimated the prevalence of FI and financial hardship across AA ethnic categories. We estimated the demographic determinants of FI, including financial hardship, among AA adults using multivariable Poisson regression. We calculated the prevalence of mental health symptoms among food-insecure AA adults, as well as among AA adults experiencing both FI and financial hardship. Results: Overall, the prevalence of FI and financial hardship among AA adults was highest among Filipino+Vietnamese adults (52.9-24.5%) and lowest among Japanese+Korean adults (13.9-8.6%). Determinants of FI among AA adults included Filipino+Vietnamese ethnicity (adjusted prevalence ratios [aPR]: 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.49-5.29), being widowed/divorced/separated (aPR: 3.14, 95% CI: 1.37-7.23), high school graduate only (aPR: 3.46, 95% CI: 1.96-6.11), having low income <$30,000 (aPR: 2.54, 95% CI: 1.27-5.06), and living in rural areas (aPR: 7.65, 95% CI: 1.17-50.14). Eighty-one percent and 63% of AA adults with anxiety and hopelessness at least 3-7 days/week, respectively, were food insecure and experiencing financial hardship. Conclusion: Disparities exist in FI and financial hardship among AA adults, particularly Filipino+Vietnamese adults, and are associated with increased self-reporting of feelings of anxiety and hopelessness.

Social Engagement and Mental Health Symptoms Across Asian American Ethnic Groups During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: To examine social engagement and mental health symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic across Asian American (AA) ethnic groups. Methods: Data from three waves of the nationally representative COVID-19 Household Impact Survey (4/20/2020-6/8/2020) were used to describe social engagement and mental health symptoms during the pandemic. Associations between mental health and social engagement were assessed via multinomial logistic regression. Results: In this sample of 312 AAs (36.9% Chinese American, 30.9% South Asian American, 20.1% Filipino/Vietnamese American, and 12.0% Japanese/Korean American), daily communication with neighbors declined for Chinese, South Asian and Filipino/Vietnamese Americans but increased for Japanese/Korean Americans (P=.012) whereas communication with friends/family increased only for Filipino/Vietnamese, Japanese/Korean and South Asian Americans (P<0.001). Differences in self-reported symptoms of anxiety, depression, loneliness, and hopelessness were observed across AA ethnic groups. In adjusted models, lower social engagement was associated with frequent (3-4 days/week) depressive symptoms during the preceding week (cOR:3.26, 95%CI:1.01-10.5). This association was heightened for Asian men (cOR:14.22, 95%CI:3.62-55.8). Conclusions: Heterogeneity of social engagement and mental health symptoms across AA ethnicities was observed. Understanding associations between social engagement and mental health within different communities is necessary to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate mental health treatment and care.

Mental Health Symptoms during the COVID-19 Pandemic among Cancer Survivors Who Endorse Cannabis: Results from the COVID-19 Cannabis Health Study.

Our objective was to examine the prevalence of mental health symptoms and the behavioral impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivors who endorse cannabis. Participants included 158 adults (≥18 years) who self-reported medicinal cannabis use and responded to our internet-based questionnaire (21 March 2020-24 March 2021). Data included 79 cancer survivors and 79 age-matched adults without a history of cancer. Descriptive statistics were used to compare demographics, the prevalence of generalized anxiety (GAD-7), depression (CES-D-10), and changes in behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic by cancer survivorship status. Overall, 60.8% and 48.1% of cancer survivors self-reported the use of cannabis to manage their anxiety and depression, respectively. Probable clinical depression (CES-D-10 score ≥ 10) and anxiety (GAD-7 score ≥ 10) were identified in 50.7% and 38.9% of cancer survivors, respectively. Cancer survivors were more likely to report that their anxiety symptoms made it very or extremely difficult to work, take care of home, or get along with others than their counterparts. Cancer survivors with anxiety and/or depression were more likely to fear giving COVID-19 to someone else (47.5% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.023) and to fear being diagnosed with COVID-19 (77.5% vs. 38.5%, p < 0.001) compared to cancer survivors without anxiety and depression symptoms. Further research is recommended to evaluate the use of cannabis as palliative care to improve mental health among cancer survivors.

Racial disparities in COVID-19 test positivity among people living with HIV in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare COVID-19 positivity by HIV status and race/ethnicity using data from the U.S. National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C). METHODS: The N3C cohort (≥ 18 years) includes patients with any encounter after 1/1/2020 with SARS-CoV-2 laboratory tests. Detailed electronic medical records are centralized and harmonized across health-care organizations (34 sites). COVID-19 diagnosis was defined by RT-PCR or antibody testing. HIV infection was defined by standard diagnostic codes within 2 years prior to COVID-19 testing. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression were utilized to compare COVID-19 positivity and HIV status by patient's race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Over 2.1 million patients were captured in the N3C as of 01/29/2021, of whom 372,716 (15%) were positive for COVID-19; 17,820 (0.7%) were PLWH of whom 2428 (13.6%) tested positive for COVID-19. COVID-19 positive PLWH were more likely to be 30+ years of age (90% vs. 70%; χ2p < 0.001), male (67% vs. 46%, χ2p < 0.001), and Black (44% vs. 15%, χ2p < 0.001) compared to HIV-negative patients. Compared to non-Hispanic/Latinx (NH)-White PLWH, NH-Black (aOR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.37-1.86), Latinx (aOR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.68-2.83), and NH-Asian (aOR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.30-3.63) PLWH were more likely to have COVID-19 after adjustment for age, sex, and CharlsonDeyo comorbidity score. CONCLUSION: PLWH and minoritized communities, including NH-Black and Latinx or Hispanic adults, appear to be disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer Screening Among Rural and Urban Clinics During COVID-19: A Multistate Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: The effects of COVID-19 have been understudied in rural areas. This study sought to (1) identify cancer screening barriers and facilitators during the pandemic in rural and urban primary care practices, (2) describe implementation strategies to support cancer screening, and (3) provide recommendations. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted (N = 42) with primary care staff across 20 sites. Individual interviews were conducted through videoconference from August 2020 to April 2021 and recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using deductive and inductive coding (hybrid approach) in NVivo 12 Plus. Practices included federally qualified health centers, tribal health centers, rural health clinics, hospital/health system-owned clinics, and academic medical centers across 10 states including urban (55%) and rural (45%) sites. Staff included individuals serving in the dual role of health care provider and administrator (21.4%), health care administrator (23.8%), physician (19.0%), advanced practice provider (11.9%), or resident (23.8%). The interviews assessed perceptions about cancer screening barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, and future recommendations. RESULTS: Participants reported multilevel barriers to cancer screening including policy-level (eg, elective procedure delays), organizational (eg, backlogs), and individual (eg, patient cancellation). Several facilitators to screening were noted, such as home-based testing, using telehealth, and strong partnerships with referral sites. Practices used strategies to encourage screening, such as incentivizing patients and providers and expanding outreach. Rural clinics reported challenges with backlogs, staffing, telehealth implementation, and patient outreach. CONCLUSION: Primary care staff used innovative strategies during the pandemic to promote cancer screening. Unresolved challenges (eg, backlogs and inability to implement telehealth) disproportionately affected rural clinics.

Does Frailty influence Inhospital Management and Outcomes of COVID-19 in Older Adults in the US?

Older age has been consistently associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Frailty, a syndrome characterized by declining function across multiple body systems is common in older adults and may increase vulnerability to adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients. However, the impacts of frailty on COVID-19 management, severity, or outcomes have not been well characterized in a large, representative US population. Using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, a multi-institutional US repository for COVID-19 research, we calculated the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), a validated EHR-based frailty score, among COVID-19 inpatients age ≥ 65. We examined patient demographics and comorbidities, length of stay (LOS), systemic corticosteroid and remdesivir use, ICU admission, and inpatient mortality across subgroups by HFRS score. Among 58,964 inpatients from 53 institutions (51% male, 65% White, 18% Black, 9% Hispanic, mean age 75, mean Charlson comorbidity count 3.0, and median LOS 7 days), 38,692 (66%), 4,180 (7%), 3,531 (6%), 3,525 (6%) and 7,862 (13%) had HFRS scores of 0-1, 2, 3, 4, and >=5 , respectively. Frailty was only moderately correlated with age and comorbidity (□=0.178 and 0.348, respectively, p<0.001). Overall, 34% received systemic corticosteroid and 19% received remdesivir. We observed 4% ICU admissions and 16% inpatient death. Among non-ICU admissions, after adjusting for demographics and comorbidities, frailty (HFRS ≥ 2) was associated with 79% greater systemic corticosteroid use and 22% greater remdesivir use, whereas a higher HRFS score was marginally associated with higher rates of severe COVID disease, inpatient death, or ICU admission.

Associations between HIV infection and clinical spectrum of COVID-19: a population level analysis based on US National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) data.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of whether people living with HIV are at elevated risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes is inconclusive. We aimed to investigate this association using the population-based National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) data in the USA. METHODS: We included all adult (aged ≥18 years) COVID-19 cases with any health-care encounter from 54 clinical sites in the USA, with data being deposited into the N3C. The outcomes were COVID-19 disease severity, hospitalisation, and mortality. Encounters in the same health-care system beginning on or after January 1, 2018, were also included to provide information about pre-existing health conditions (eg, comorbidities). Logistic regression models were employed to estimate the association of HIV infection and HIV markers (CD4 cell count, viral load) with hospitalisation, mortality, and clinical severity of COVID-19 (multinomial). The models were initially adjusted for demographic characteristics, then subsequently adjusted for smoking, obesity, and a broad range of comorbidities. Interaction terms were added to assess moderation effects by demographic characteristics. FINDINGS: In the harmonised N3C data release set from Jan 1, 2020, to May 8, 2021, there were 1 436 622 adult COVID-19 cases, of these, 13 170 individuals had HIV infection. A total of 26 130 COVID-19 related deaths occurred, with 445 among people with HIV. After adjusting for all the covariates, people with HIV had higher odds of COVID-19 death (adjusted odds ratio 1·29, 95% CI 1·16-1·44) and hospitalisation (1·20, 1·15-1·26), but lower odds of mild or moderate COVID-19 (0·61, 0·59-0·64) than people without HIV. Interaction terms revealed that the elevated odds were higher among older age groups, male, Black, African American, Hispanic, or Latinx adults. A lower CD4 cell count (<200 cells per µL) was associated with all the adverse COVID-19 outcomes, while viral suppression was only associated with reduced hospitalisation. INTERPRETATION: Given the COVID-19 pandemic's exacerbating effects on health inequities, public health and clinical communities must strengthen services and support to prevent aggravated COVID-19 outcomes among people with HIV, particularly for those with pronounced immunodeficiency. FUNDING: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.

Physical and Mental Health Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic among US Adults with Chronic Respiratory Conditions.

Adults living with chronic respiratory diseases are at higher risk of death due to COVID-19. Our objective was to evaluate the physical and mental health symptoms among US adults living with chronic respiratory conditions. We used data of 10,760 US adults from the nationally representative COVID-19 Impact Survey. Chronic respiratory conditions were self-reported and included asthma (14.7%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD (4.7%), and bronchitis/emphysema (11.6%). We used multivariable Poisson regression to evaluate physical health symptoms. We estimated associations of mental health symptoms using multinomial logistic regression. In multivariable models, adults with asthma were more likely to report physical symptoms including runny or stuffy nose, chest congestion, fever, and chills. In addition, adults with COPD were more likely to report several physical symptoms including fever (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.72), chills (aPR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.67-2.64), runny or stuffy nose (aPR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.39-2.27), chest congestion (aPR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.74-2.61), sneezing (aPR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.23-2.05), and muscle or body aches (aPR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.06-1.81). Adults with chronic respiratory conditions are more likely to report physical and mental health symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to others. Providers should prioritize discussing mental health symptom management as the pandemic continues to be a public health concern in the US.