Impact of comorbidities on people with and without cancer early in the COVID-19 pandemic: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: The present study sought to investigate how comorbidity burden influences cancer survivors' quality of life (QoL) and the challenges/adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID) pandemic, and to examine how appraisal processes are related to this impact. METHODS: This cross-sectional study, administered in spring/summer 2020, compared cancer survivors to a general-population comparison sample. QoL was assessed with standardized tools. COVID-specific questions included selected items compiled by the US National Institutes of Health, and cognitive appraisal processes were assessed using the QoL Appraisal Profilev2 Short-Form. Principal components analysis reduced the number of comparisons. Multivariate analysis of covariance investigated group differences in QoL, COVID-specific variables, and cognitive-appraisal processes. Linear regression investigated group differences in COVID-specific variables as a function of cognitive-appraisal processes, QoL, demographic covariates, and their interactions. RESULTS: Cancer survivors fared substantially better than non-cancer participants in QoL and cognitive functioning when they had no other comorbidities, but substantially worse on QoL when they had three or more comorbidities. Cancer survivors with no comorbidities were less likely to feel worried about COVID, less likely to engage in self-protection, and prioritized engaging in problem-focused and prosocial actions compared to non-cancer participants. Conversely, cancer survivors confronted with multiple comorbidities exhibited more proactive self-protection and experienced more anxiety about the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The impact of having multiple comorbidities in the context of cancer is associated with notable differences in social determinants of health, QoL outcomes, COVID-specific challenges/adaptations, and appraisal of QoL. These findings provide an empirical basis for implementing appraisal-based coping interventions.

Race-related differences in the economic, healthcare-access, and psychological impact of COVID-19: personal resources associated with resilience.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID) is worse among those with fewer financial resources, in jobs not amenable to remote work, and in denser living conditions. People of color are more likely to be among these vulnerable groups. Although race itself is a social construction and not based on underlying genetic/biological differences, this study investigated race/ethnicity differences in the negative repercussions of COVID and in the benefits of psychological and social resources. METHODS: This cross-sectional, web-based study (n = 4817) was administered to a heterogeneous United States sample in Spring/Summer 2020. Information was gathered on the following COVID-specific variables: Infection Status, Coping with Lockdown, Social Support, Post-traumatic Growth, Interpersonal Conflict, Worry about Self, Financial Impact on Family, Lack of Money, Inadequate Access to Healthcare, and Housing Instability. Resilience was operationalized as the ability to maintain a sense of wellness in the face of the pandemic, using the DeltaQuest Wellness measure. Multivariate linear regression (adjusting for demographics) and propensity-matched cohort analysis (matched on demographics) evaluated the impact of COVID-specific variables on Wellness in separate models for Whites and Non-Whites. FINDINGS: Both sets of models retained the same COVID-specific variables and explained about half of the variance in wellness. Coping with Lockdown, Social Support, and Post-traumatic Growth were associated with higher levels of Wellness in both Whites and Non-Whites, while Interpersonal Conflict and Worry about Self were associated with lower levels of Wellness. While these associations are similar, Non-Whites reported worse levels of some positive resources (e.g., social support) and more challenging levels of negative stressors (e.g., interpersonal, worry, financial). Non-Whites also reported much higher levels of post-traumatic growth. CONCLUSION: COVID was a source of worry and even conflict, but also unlocked people's resources in use of health-enhancing behavioral strategies, social support, and renewed gratitude for sources of personal meaning and value. The similar relationships between Whites and Non-Whites on wellness and COVID-specific stressors across racial groups underscore that race is a social construction, not a biological fact. Focusing on a renewed appreciation for sources of personal meaning, and particularly faith, seemed to buffer much of the COVID-related stress for Non-Whites.

The impact of COVID-19 on people with multiple sclerosis: A comparison of Italian and United States cohorts.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The present cross-national study addressed the relationship among three pandemic-related variables and multiple sclerosis (MS) disability outcomes among people with MS in Italy and the United States (US). METHODS: This cross-sectional web-based study was administered to 708 patients with MS from the US and Italy in late Spring through mid-Summer of 2020. Pandemic-related variables assessed worry, self-protection, and post-traumatic growth. The Performance Scales© assessed MS disability. Multivariate multiple regression models addressed, separately by country, the relationship among worry, protection, and post-traumatic growth with MS disability, after covariate adjustment. RESULTS: The Italian sample (n = 292) was younger and less disabled than the US group (n = 416). After covariate adjustment, all three pandemic-related variables were associated with MS disability outcomes in the US sample, but only worry and post-traumatic growth were associated in the Italian sample. Worse cognitive and depression symptoms were associated with worry, and lesser mobility disability was associated with endorsed growth in both countries. More disability variables were associated with worry and growth in the Italian sample. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic's negative aspects were associated with worse disability in both countries, and reported post-traumatic growth was associated with lesser disability. These findings may suggest directions for clinical intervention.

Drivers of caregiver impact in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In our companion paper, we addressed the interplay between caregiver impact, out-of-pocket expenditures, and Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) disability. We found that DMD caregiver impact could be characterized by four Latent Profile Analysis impact profiles: lowest, lower middle, upper middle, and highest impact. The impact on caregivers was often but not always worse with greater out-of-pocket expenditures. Further, while the lowest-, lower-middle, and highest-impact profiles reflected low, moderate and high disability-related caregiver burden, respectively, the upper-middle profile group was quite variable in level of disability across domains. To better understand the four caregiver-impact profiles, we examine how a comprehensive set of psychosocial factors differentiate the four profile groups. METHODS: Psychosocial factors assessed included demographic characteristics, quality of life (QOL), stress, cognitive appraisal, reserve-building, and general and COVID-specific resilience. Linear modeling examined relationships between impact profiles and psychosocial factors. We used effect size rather than p-value as the criterion for determining relevance of the broad range of characteristics examined. RESULTS: Multivariate analyses implicated stress and environmental mastery, appraisal sampling of experience, COVID-specific variables, appraisal standards of comparison, appraisal goals, demographics, appraisal combinatory algorithm, reserve-building, and resilience, in order of prominence (average eta2 = 0.29, 0.29, 0.16, 0.15, 0.09, 0.07, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, and 0.02, respectively). On the whole, comparisons of highest-versus-lowest impact profiles revealed more and larger differences than comparisons of upper-middle versus lower-middle impact profiles. Life stress, goals, and reserve-building activities had a smaller differentiating effect in the middle groups. CONCLUSION: A more comprehensive 'story' about DMD caregiver impact involves life stress, environmental mastery, COVID-specific variables, and cognitive and behavioral factors. Implications are discussed for coaching interventions to support DMD caregivers.