Disruption in Cancer Care During Early Survivorship due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Patient Satisfaction with Telemedicine.

PURPOSE: The extent to which adults with cancer during early survivorship experienced disruptions in care due to COVID-19 pandemic, as well as their experiences with the transition to telemedicine, remains understudied. METHODS: We examined cancer care disruption and satisfaction with telemedicine due to COVID-19 in 361 adults (Mage = 59.42, SD = 11.3) with breast, prostate or colorectal cancer during early survivorship. The Telemedicine Satisfaction and Usefulness Questionnaire (TSUQ) and patient self-report Cancer Care Disruption Index (CCDI) was administered via RedCap survey. RESULTS: The most prevalent areas of patient-reported cancer care disruption included supportive care appointments canceled/postponed (57%), in-person appointments changed to virtual appointments (56%), social work services canceled (32%), palliative care appointments canceled/postponed (24%), elective surgeries related to cancer postponed (23%), and screening tests postponed (19%). Regarding patient satisfaction with telemedicine, 78.0% "agree" or "strongly agree" that they were satisfied with the overall telemedicine system. Most survivors reported satisfaction with their doctor dealing with problems (88.2%), doctors answering patient questions (92.7%), and engaged patients in care (86.1%), However, 49.3% of cancer patients disagreed that virtual visits are as satisfying as in-person visits and 35.6% were dissatisfied with the lack of physical contact during virtual visits. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer survivorship care, with supportive care, social work services, and mode of delivery (in-person vs. virtual) particularly affected. The downstream impact of cancer care disruption in those living with cancer during the pandemic as well as the quality of telehealth modality as part of cancer survivorship care delivery await future investigation.

Religiousness in the first year of COVID-19: A systematic review of empirical research.

The COVID-19 pandemic emerged suddenly in early 2020, posing a serious health threat and creating tremendous stress and distress across the world. Religion has been shown to play important and varied roles in previous disasters and health crises, but its roles in the pandemic have yet to be outlined. We aimed to summarize the research conducted on religion and COVID-19 in the first year of the pandemic with a systematic review of studies that specifically involved individual-level religiousness and COVID-19. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO covering a one-year period from the first published mention of the novel coronavirus (Jan. 5, 2020) through January 4, 2021. We included articles about COVID-19 that were peer-reviewed and empirical, measured and reported results on religion on an individual level, and were available in English. Our search produced 137 empirical articles that met the inclusion criteria. In the course of sorting studies by their primary focus, eight categories of empirical findings emerged: general distress and wellbeing (53 articles), COVID-19-specific stress (24 articles), beliefs in science, conspiracies, and misinformation (15 articles), COVID-19 public health behaviors (12 articles), perceived risk of COVID-19 (10 articles), perceived growth or positive changes taking place during the pandemic (nine articles), health behaviors (three articles), and consumer behavior (three articles). Findings indicated that religiousness was associated with both unique benefits and challenges and played a significant role in the pandemic. Religiousness was associated with a broad range of outcomes across geographical regions and populations during the first year of COVID-19. It was a commonly reported coping mechanism with varying levels of favorable associations with mental health and COVID-19-related behaviors.

Predictors of Mental Health Help-Seeking During COVID-19: Social Support, Emotion Regulation, and Mental Health Symptoms.

Little is known about factors that contribute to mental health help-seeking during disasters beyond attitudes toward counseling. The COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) global pandemic dramatically impacted individuals, families, and communities worldwide. The pandemic led to significant disruptions to family routines, and evidence suggests an increase in instances of mental health symptoms, like depression and anxiety, and poor utilization of mental health services. To better understand psychological factors associated with help-seeking during the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers surveyed respondents (n = 1,533 at time 1) about their mental health and help-seeking using Amazon's MTurk platform. The results indicated that individuals with higher levels of anxiety rate their likelihood of help-seeking as higher and those who do seek psychological help report higher levels of depression. Further, those who began new treatment for behavioral health difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic reported lower social support and less clarity about how they felt (specifically, emotional clarity when upset). Implications for clinical researchers and public health are discussed.

Does perceived post-traumatic growth during the COVID-19 pandemic reflect actual positive changes?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: People commonly report positive changes following stressful experiences (perceived posttraumatic growth; PPTG), yet whether PPTG validly reflects positive changes remains unestablished. DESIGN AND METHODS: We tested the extent to which COVID-19 pandemic-related PPTG relates to positive changes in corresponding psychosocial resources in a national US sample participating in a five wave study (T1-T5), focusing here on T2-T5: ns = 712-860. We examined correlations between resource change (both latent and observed difference scores) and PPTG at each occasion and conducted structural equation models to separate occasion-specific and stable (traitlike) PPTG variance. We related changes in resources to occasion-specific and stable PPTG components. RESULTS: Associations between change scores and occasion-specific PPTG were sparse, providing limited evidence of PPTG validity. Associations between change scores and stable PPTG tended to be positive and stronger than associations for occasion-specific PPTG. DISCUSSION: Perceptions of growth were largely unrelated to experienced positive changes and thus appear to be largely illusory. However, a personality-like tendency to believe one grows from stressful experiences relates more strongly to actual resource growth. These results suggest that people are not accurate reporters of positive changes they experience and that interventions aimed at promoting post-traumatic growth may be premature.

Social Media Use Early in the Pandemic Predicted Later Social Well-Being and Mental Health in a National Online Sample of Adults in the United States.

Social media use increased early in the Covid-19 pandemic, but little information is available about its impact. The present study examined associations of frequency of use of different social media and the motives for use with subsequent social well-being and mental health. Data were gathered on a nationwide sample of 843 Americans during the first wave of lockdowns and infections in mid-April 2020, and again five weeks later. Participants were adults ages 20 to 88 years old (M = 39.3 years old) recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Controlling for age and gender, greater frequency of Facebook and video chat app use predicted higher levels social support but also higher levels of cumulative Covid-19-related stress appraisals and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Greater use of video chat apps also predicted less loneliness. Greater use of both Instagram and Snapchat predicted more anxiety and cumulative Covid-19-related stress appraisals. Greater use of Instagram also predicted higher levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms. Motives for use (e.g., connect with others, waste time/avoid responsibility, online video gaming with others) also differentially predicted social well-being and mental health. Results indicate that greater social media use early in the pandemic was often associated with more distress and lower levels of social well-being but, effects varied depending on types, frequency, and motivations for use. Overall, the study revealed that social media use related to social well-being and mental health in complex ways.

Does perceived post-traumatic growth predict better psychological adjustment during the COVID-19 pandemic? Results from a national longitudinal survey in the USA

Perceiving that one has grown in positive ways following highly stressful experiences (perceived posttraumatic growth;PPTG) is common and sometimes--but not always--related to psychological wellbeing. However, PPTG is typically studied cross-sectionally and well after the stressful experience has passed;how PPTG might relate to wellbeing over time in an unprecedented, ongoing worldwide disaster such as the COVID-19 pandemic remains unknown. Thus, the current study sought to answer whether, in the midst of the pandemic, PPTG relates to subsequent wellbeing, broadly defined. Participants were N = 1544 MTurk workers who completed a five-wave (T1-T5) six-month longitudinal study. Current analyses focused on T2-T5 (ns = 860–712). At each time point, participants completed self-report measures of PPTG and wellbeing (depression, anxiety, stress, positive states of mind, alcohol use, posttraumatic stress). In cross-lagged panel models, PPTG was largely unrelated to subsequent wellbeing. Somewhat more evidence was found that increasing distress led to increases in PPTG, suggesting perceptions of growth may serve as a coping mechanism. PPTG does not appear to benefit adjustment to the COVID-19 pandemic and may simply reflect efforts to manage distress.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of psychosocial interventions on spiritual well-being in adults with cancer.

Objective: Spiritual well-being (SpWb) is an important dimension of health-related quality of life for many cancer patients. Accordingly, an increasing number of psychosocial intervention studies have included SpWb as a study endpoint, and may improve SpWb even if not designed explicitly to do so. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated effects of psychosocial interventions on SpWb in adults with cancer and tested potential moderators of intervention effects. Methods: Six literature databases were systematically searched to identify RCTs of psychosocial interventions in which SpWb was an outcome. Doctoral-level rater pairs extracted data using Covidence following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Standard meta-analytic techniques were applied, including meta-regression with robust variance estimation and risk-of-bias sensitivity analysis. Results: Forty-one RCTs were identified, encompassing 88 treatment effects among 3883 survivors. Interventions were associated with significant improvements in SpWb (g = 0.22, 95% CI [0.14, 0.29], p < 0.0001). Studies assessing the FACIT-Sp demonstrated larger effect sizes than did those using other measures of SpWb (g = 0.25, 95% CI [0.17, 0.34], vs. g = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.23], p = 0.03]. No other intervention, clinical, or demographic characteristics significantly moderated effect size. Conclusions: Psychosocial interventions are associated with small-to-medium-sized effects on SpWb among cancer survivors. Future research should focus on conceptually coherent interventions explicitly targeting SpWb and evaluate interventions in samples that are diverse with respect to race and ethnicity, sex and cancer type.

A latent profile analysis of the COVID-19 Stressors Scale.

OBJECTIVE: Research from the early months of the SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) pandemic identifies many COVID-related stressors, including fears of infection, disruptions to work/learning and daily self-care routines, and lack of access to reliable information and resources. Measuring the complex, ongoing nature of the stressors related to COVID-19 is of great practical utility, as is investigating how people may differently respond to stressors. The objective of the present study was to identify the possible profiles of COVID-19-related stressors using a recently developed measure, the COVID-19 Stressors Scale. METHOD: The present study sampled individuals from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk; n = 1,530) and examined the COVID-19 Stressors Scale with a latent profile analysis. RESULTS: Using a latent profile analysis, three profiles of COVID-19-related stressors were identified, Moderate Disruption Distress, High Disruption Distress, and Identity and Role Strain. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the study, the authors encourage researchers to differentiate types of stressors profiles of individual experiences COVID-19 or future pandemics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Short-term impacts of COVID-19 on family caregivers: Emotion regulation, coping, and mental health.

BACKGROUND: The negative mental health impact of coronavirus disease 2019-related stressors may be heightened for those caring for children, who bear responsibity for their welfare during disasters. AIM: Based on the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, we inquired whether caregivers' emotion regulation and coping behavior were associated with posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). MATERIALS & METHODS: Data were collected through a national online survey in April 2020, and again 60 days later. RESULTS: Of the 801 longitudinal cases, 176 (63.6% female; mean age = 33.5) reported caring for minors in their homes during the pandemic. Over 20% of caregivers experienced clinically concerning PTSS, rates higher than their noncaregiving counterparts. Regression analysis indicates caregivers' baseline mental health symptoms and emotion regulation predicted PTSS 60 days later. DISCUSSION: Implications for needed parenting supports among families experiencing traumatic stress are provided. CONCLUSION: Anxiety symptoms at baseline were the most significant and consistent contributor to all models and were significantly higher among those with clinically concerning levels of PTSS suggesting a clear intervention target.

Anxiety, depressive, and trauma symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evaluating the role of disappointment with God.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to pervasive social and economic disruptions. This cross-sectional investigation aimed to evaluate associations between religious/spiritual factors and mental health symptoms among community residents in a southern US state. In particular, we focused on perceptions of God's distance, a salient aspect of religious/spiritual struggle that has received little scrutiny in health research. METHODS: Participants included 551 respondents assessed during a period of gradual reopening but rising infection rates. Mental health outcomes were assessed using standardized measures of generalized anxiety, depression, and trauma symptoms. Perceptions of an affirming relationship with God, anger at God, and disappointment at God's distance were evaluated using an adapted version of the Attitudes-Toward-God Scale-9. RESULTS: In multivariate analyses that accounted for pandemic-related and demographic factors, positive relationships with God were related to diminished symptoms on all three mental heatlh indices (all p's ≤.003), whereas disappointment with God's distance was associated with more pronounced difficulties (all p's ≤.014). LIMTATIONS: The cross-sectional design precludes causal conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that perceived relationships with God are tied to clinically relevant mental health outcomes during periods of major upheaval. Disappointment with God's distance may be an important, understudied dimension of religious/spiritual struggle meriting further investigation.

Psychological resilience early in the COVID-19 pandemic: Stressors, resources, and coping strategies in a national sample of Americans.

Spreading rapidly across the United States beginning in the spring of 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic radically disrupted Americans' lives. Previous studies of community-wide disasters suggested people are fairly resilient and identified resources and strategies that promote that resilience. Yet, the COVID-19 pandemic is in some ways unique, with high levels of uncertainty, evolving implications and restrictions, and varied and uneven impacts. How resilient were Americans as the pandemic progressed? What psychosocial resources and coping strategies facilitated adjustment as the country moved into a summer of uneven reopenings and reclosures? Data from a national sample of 674 Americans were gathered at the height of early lockdowns and peaking infections in mid-April, 2020, and again, 5 and 10 weeks later. The study aimed to determine levels and sources of distress and to identify the resources and coping efforts that promoted or impeded resilience. Early levels of distress diminished to some extent over subsequent months while levels of wellbeing were comparable with usual norms, suggesting a largely resilient response. COVID-19-related stress exposure also decreased gradually over time. Older age, higher levels of mindfulness and social support, and meaning focused coping predicted better adjustment, reflecting resilience, while avoidance coping was particularly unhelpful. In models predicting change over time, approach-oriented coping (i.e., active coping, meaning-focused coping, and seeking social support) was minimally predictive of subsequent adjustment. Given the unique and ongoing circumstances presented by COVID-19, specific interventions targeting psychosocial resources and coping identified here may help to promote resilience as the pandemic continues to unfold. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Americans' distress early in the COVID-19 pandemic: Protective resources and coping strategies.

OBJECTIVE: The rapid emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States has dramatically altered daily life and taken a toll on Americans' physical, mental, social, and financial well-being. Based on previous widespread disasters, future high prevalence of short- and long-term adverse mental health consequences are anticipated. Studies of COVID-19 outside the United States indicated moderately high levels of distress, but we have little information regarding Americans' distress nor the factors associated with relative distress or adjustment during this unprecedented time. This study represents the first national view of Americans' distress during the massive disruption of COVID-19 and identifies levels of stress exposure, protective psychosocial resources, and coping strategies. METHOD: Data were collected April 7-9, 2020 from an online platform, using best practices for ensuring high-quality data; 1,015 completed respondents are included ([53.9%] women; average age = 38.9 years; mostly White [82.4%] and non-Hispanic [91.5%]). Respondents' locations ranged across the United States, from 18.5% in the Northeast to 37.8% in the South. RESULTS: Fairly high levels of stress exposure and peritraumatic and general distress (depression, anxiety, and stress) were reported. Emotion regulation skills along with active and distraction coping emerged as the strongest predictors of lower distress levels. CONCLUSIONS: These results identify potential targets for online mental health interventions-focusing on engaging in adaptive emotion regulation and coping (e.g., through telehealth mental health first aid)-during the pandemic to offset the likely rise in distress over the months ahead. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Measuring Cumulative Stressfulness: Psychometric Properties of the COVID-19 Stressors Scale.

Scales assessing stressor exposure often fail to demonstrate adequate psychometric qualities, demonstrating low interitem reliability or complex factor structures, as would be expected, given that the majority of stressors are independent events. However, in large-scale mass crisis events, the stressors may be highly interrelated, indicating shared experience. Furthermore, few stressor exposure scales also measure appraised stressfulness of those stressors. Development of a psychometrically sound measure of both stressor exposure and appraisal advances the study of highly stressful events such as community-wide crises, especially in providing a useful measure of its cumulative stressfulness. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an enduring, worldwide stressor with an indefinite timeline. The COVID-19 Stressor Scale is a 23-item measure of stressor exposure and appraisal related to the pandemic developed within the first weeks of widespread shelter-in-place practices in the Unites States. We present initial psychometric results of the COVID-19 Stressor Scale. Results of a principal components analysis indicate that the measure is unidimensional and has strong internal consistency. Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity were demonstrated. The COVID-19 Stressor Scale is a useful measure for studying the ongoing stressors associated with the pandemic and presents a model for measuring other massive, ongoing crises.

Americans' COVID-19 Stress, Coping, and Adherence to CDC Guidelines.

IMPORTANCE: Documenting Americans' stress responses to an unprecedented pandemic and their degree of adherence to CDC guidelines is essential for mental health interventions and policy-making. OBJECTIVE: To provide the first snapshot of immediate impact of COVID-19 on Americans' stress, coping, and guideline adherence. DESIGN: Data were collected from an online workers' platform for survey research (Amazon's Mechanical Turk) from April 7 to 9, 2020. The current data represents the baseline of a longitudinal study. Best practices for ensuring high-quality data were employed. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who are 18 years of age or older, living in the USA, and English-speaking were eligible for the study. Of 1086 unique responses, 1015 completed responses are included. SETTING: Population-based. MAIN OUTCOMES: Exposure to and stressfulness of COVID-19 stressors, coping strategies, and adherence to CDC guidelines. RESULTS: The sample was 53.9% women (n = 547), with an average age of 38.9 years (SD = 13.50, range = 18-88), most of whom were White (n = 836, 82.4%), non-Hispanic (n = 929, 91.5%), and straight/heterosexual (n = 895, 88.2%); 40% were currently married (n = 407), and 21.6% (n = 219) were caregivers. About half (50.5%) endorsed having at least "mostly" enough money to meet their needs. Respondents' locations across the USA ranged from 18.5% in the Northeast to 37.8% in the South. The most commonly experienced stressors were reading/hearing about the severity and contagiousness of COVID-19, uncertainty about length of quarantine and social distancing requirements, and changes to social and daily personal care routines. Financial concerns were rated most stressful. Younger age, female gender, and caregiver status increased risk for stressor exposure and greater degree of stressfulness. The most frequently reported strategies to manage stress were distraction, active coping, and seeking emotional social support. CDC guideline adherence was generally high, but several key social distancing and hygiene behaviors showed suboptimal adherence, particularly for men and younger adults. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Americans have high COVID-19 stress exposure and some demographic subgroups appear particularly vulnerable to stress effects. Subgroups less likely to adhere to CDC guidelines may benefit from targeted information campaigns. these findings may guide mental health interventions and inform policy-making regarding implications of specific public health measures.