Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
JMIR Cancer ; 8(1): e31576, 2022 Jan 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1662515

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We conducted a pilot 2-arm randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility of a digital health intervention to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) during chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether a digital health physical activity intervention is feasible and acceptable during chemotherapy for CRC. METHODS: Potentially eligible patients with CRC expected to receive at least 12 weeks of chemotherapy were identified in person at the University of California, San Francisco, and on the web through advertising. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to a 12-week intervention (Fitbit Flex, automated SMS text messages) versus usual care. At 0 and 12 weeks, patients wore an Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometer for 7 days and completed surveys, body size measurements, and an optional 6-minute walk test. Participants could not be masked to their intervention arm, but people assessing the body size and 6-minute walk test outcomes were masked. The primary outcomes were adherence (eg, Fitbit wear and text response rate) and self-assessed acceptability of the intervention. The intervention would be considered feasible if we observed at least 80% complete follow-up and 70% adherence and satisfaction, a priori. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2020, we screened 240 patients; 53.3% (128/240) of patients were ineligible and 26.7% (64/240) declined to participate. A total of 44 patients (44/240, 18%) were randomized to the intervention (n=22) or control (n=22) groups. Of these, 57% (25/44) were women; 68% (30/44) identified as White and 25% (11/44) identified as Asian American or Pacific Islander; and 77% (34/44) had a 4-year college degree. The median age at enrollment was 54 years (IQR 45-62 years). Follow-up at 12 weeks was 91% (40/44) complete. In the intervention arm, patients wore Fitbit devices on a median of 67 out of 84 (80%) study days and responded to a median of 17 out of 27 (63%) questions sent via SMS text message. Among 19 out of 22 (86%) intervention patients who completed the feedback survey, 89% (17/19) were satisfied with the Fitbit device; 63% (12/19) were satisfied with the SMS text messages; 68% (13/19) said the SMS text messages motivated them to exercise; 74% (14/19) said the frequency of SMS text messages (1-3 days) was ideal; and 79% (15/19) said that receiving SMS text messages in the morning and evening was ideal. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated that many people receiving chemotherapy for CRC are interested in participating in digital health physical activity interventions. Fitbit adherence was high; however, participants indicated a desire for more tailored SMS text message content. Studies with more socioeconomically diverse patients with CRC are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03524716; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03524716.

2.
Cancer ; 127(17): 3246-3253, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1202691

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Loneliness/psychology , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Anxiety , Depression , Humans , Neoplasms/psychology , Public Health Surveillance , Risk Factors , Social Isolation/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
JAMA Oncol ; 6(9): 1429-1433, 2020 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-807051

ABSTRACT

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced oncology clinicians and administrators in the United States to set priorities for cancer care owing to resource constraints. As oncology practices adapt to a contracted health care system, expertise gained from partnerships in low-resource settings can be used for guidance. This article provides a primer on priority setting in oncology and ethical guidance based on lessons learned from experience with cancer care priority setting in low-resource settings. Observations: Lessons learned from real-world experiences are myriad. First, in the setting of limited resources, a utilitarian approach to maximizing survival benefit should guide decision-making. Second, conflicting principles will often arise among stakeholders and decision makers. Third, fair decision-making procedures should be established to ensure moral legitimacy and accountability. Fourth, proactive safeguards must be implemented to protect vulnerable individuals, or disparities in cancer treatment and outcomes will only widen further. Fifth, communication with patients and families about priority setting decisions should be intentional and standardized. Sixth, moral distress among clinicians must be addressed to avoid burnout during a time when resilience is critical. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the need to triage cancer care may be new to those who underwent training and now practice oncology in high-resource settings, it is familiar for those who practice in low- and middle-income countries. Oncologists in the United States facing unprecedented decisions about prioritization can draw on ethical frameworks and lessons learned from real-world cancer care priority setting in resource-constrained environments.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Oncology Service, Hospital , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Communication , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Decision Making , Health Resources , Humans , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
5.
J Pain Symptom Manage ; 60(5): e25-e34, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-739927

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: No information is available on oncology patients' level of stress and symptom burden during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, levels of social isolation and loneliness, and the occurrence and severity of common symptoms between oncology patients with low vs. high levels of COVID-19 and cancer-related stress. In addition, to determine which of these characteristics were associated with membership in the high-stressed group. METHODS: Patients were 18 years and older; had a diagnosis of cancer; and were able to complete an online survey. RESULTS: Of the 187 patients in this study, 31.6% were categorized in the stressed group (Impact of Event Scale-Revised [score of ≥24]). Stressed group's Impact of Event Scale-Revised score exceeds previous benchmarks in oncology patients and equates with probable post-traumatic stress disorder. In this stressed group, patients reported occurrence rates for depression (71.2%), anxiety (78.0%), sleep disturbance (78.0%), evening fatigue (55.9%), cognitive impairment (91.5%), and pain (75.9%). Symptom severity scores equate with clinically meaningful levels for each symptom. CONCLUSION: We identified alarmingly high rates of stress and an extraordinarily high symptom burden among patients with cancer, exceeding those previously benchmarked in this population and on par with noncancer patients with post-traumatic stress disorder. Given that the COVID-19 pandemic will likely impact cancer care for an indefinite period, clinicians must exhibit increased vigilance in their assessments of patients' level of stress and symptom burden. Moreover, an increase in referrals to appropriate supportive care resources must be prioritized for high-risk patients.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Neoplasms/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Aged , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Pandemics , Severity of Illness Index
6.
Support Care Cancer ; 29(4): 1941-1950, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-718427

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: No information is available on cancer patients' knowledge of and experiences with COVID-19. We undertook an evaluation of differences in COVID-19 symptom occurrence rates, COVID-19 testing rates, clinical care activities, knowledge of COVID-19, and use of mitigation procedures between patients who were and were not receiving active cancer treatment. METHODS: Patients enrolled were > 18 years of age; had a diagnosis of cancer; and were able to complete the emailed study survey online. RESULTS: Of the 174 patients who participated, 27.6% (n = 48) were receiving active treatment, 13.6% were unemployed because of COVID-19, 12.2% had been tested for COVID-19, and 0.6% had been hospitalized for COVID-19. Patients who were not on active treatment reported a higher mean number of COVID-19 symptoms (3.1 (± 4.2) versus 1.9 (± 2.6)), and patients who reported a higher number of COVID-19 symptoms were more likely to be tested. Over 55% of the patients were confident that their primary care provider could diagnose COVID-19, and the majority of the patients had high levels of adherence with the use of precautionary measures (e.g., social distancing, use of face coverings). CONCLUSION: The high level of COVID-19 symptoms and the significant overlap of COVID-19 and cancer-related symptoms pose challenges for clinicians who are assessing and triaging oncology patients for COVID-19 testing. For patients on active treatment, clinicians face challenges with how to assess and manage symptoms that, prior to COVID-19, would be ascribed to acute toxicities associated with cancer treatments or persistent symptoms in cancer survivors.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Neoplasms , Patients , Perception , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Educational Status , Female , Humans , Infection Control , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/psychology , Neoplasms/therapy , Patients/psychology , Patients/statistics & numerical data , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL