Measuring symptom burden in patients with cancer during a pandemic: the MD Anderson symptom inventory for COVID-19 (MDASI-COVID).

BACKGROUND: Symptom expression in SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) may affect patients already symptomatic with cancer. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can describe symptom burden during the acute and postacute stages of COVID-19 and support risk stratification for levels of care. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, our purpose was to rapidly develop, launch through an electronic patient portal, and provide initial validation for a PRO measure of COVID-19 symptom burden in patients with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a CDC/WHO web-based scan for COVID-19 symptoms and a relevance review of symptoms by an expert panel of clinicians treating cancer patients with COVID-19 to create a provisional MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for COVID-19 (MDASI-COVID). English-speaking adults with cancer who tested positive for COVID-19 participated in the psychometric testing phase. Patients completed longitudinal assessments of the MDASI-COVID and the EuroQOL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) utility index and visual analog scale, which were presented through an electronic health record patient portal. To test the validity of the MDASI-COVID to distinguish between known groups of patients, we hypothesized that patients hospitalized, including having a hospitalization extended, for COVID-19 versus those not hospitalized would experience higher symptom burden. Correlation of mean symptom severity and interference scores with relevant EQ-5D-5L scores tested concurrent validity. The reliability of the MDASI-COVID was evaluated by calculating Cronbach alpha coefficients and test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients between the initial assessment and a second assessment no more than 14 days later. RESULTS: The web-based scan found 31 COVID-19-related symptoms; rankings of a 14-clinician expert panel reduced this list to 11 COVID-specific items to be added to the core MDASI. Time from literature scan start in March 2020 to instrument launch in May 2020 was 2 months. Psychometric analysis established the MDASI-COVID's reliability, known-group validity, and concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to rapidly develop and electronically launch a PRO measure of COVID-19 symptom burden in patients with cancer. Additional research is needed to confirm the content domain and predictive validity of the MDASI-COVID and define the symptom burden trajectory of COVID-19.

Factors of maladaptive coping in emergency healthcare professionals: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Emergency healthcare professionals (EHPs) face significant occupational stressors requiring the skilled use of adaptive coping strategies. Some EHP resort to maladaptive coping (MC) strategies that negatively impact their mental health, yet MC strategies are not clearly defined in the literature. Examining factors that predispose EHP to MC can support interventions to improve coping and well-being. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examined MC among EHP working in pre-hospital and hospital-based settings. The primary aim was to identify factors associated with MC strategies used by EHP. METHODS: Embase, Ovid, CINAHL Plus, PsychInfo, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for quantitative studies measuring MC use among EHP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 checklist was used to guide the review. Studies were included if they: (a) targeted licensed healthcare professionals providing patient care, (b) occurred in emergency department or pre-hospital emergency setting, and (c) examined provider coping. Studies were excluded if they: (a) did not include EHPs, (b) did not differentiate results in mixed samples, (c) did not clearly measure coping strategies, (d) failed to include MC strategies in the results, or (e) were not available in full text. Risk of bias and study quality was appraised using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist. Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) guided the final synthesis, drawing conclusions from the evidence to identify factors associated with MC in EHP. RESULTS: A total of 14 cross-sectional studies, published between 2003 and 2021, were included in the review. Included studies were conducted in either pre-hospital, hospital, or a combination of both settings. Most studies included mixed samples or emergency physicians. A variety of coping strategies were significantly correlated with poor mental health outcomes including venting, denial, disengagement, self-blame, and substance use. Among personal factors, EHPs who were female, older than 50, living alone, with personal trauma history were significantly more likely to use MC strategies. Additionally, EHP with children, work experience, higher life satisfaction, and resilience were negatively associated with MC. Environmental factors positively associated with MC included work stress, workload, and poor benefits. Trauma exposure had a positive, but non-significant relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency healthcare professionals use a variety of coping strategies, many of which are maladaptive and significantly related to poor mental health outcomes. Several personal and environmental factors contribute to behavior that reflect the use of MC strategies, but findings are sparse. Researchers should consider current limitations and challenges, particularly mental health stigma, when designing future studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The evidence in this review suggests that certain factors predispose EHP for use of MC strategies. This review highlights an important research gap necessitating more robust studies to identify MC risk factors among EHP in chronically high-stress environments.

Dyadic versus individual delivery of a yoga program for family caregivers of glioma patients undergoing radiotherapy: Results of a 3-arm randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite their significant distress, supportive care interventions for caregivers of glioma patients are generally lacking. And, whether caregivers are more likely to benefit from interventions targeting patient-caregiver dyads or caregivers individually is unknown. This pilot randomized controlled trial compared the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a dyadic yoga (DY) versus an individual caregiver yoga (CY) intervention as a supportive care strategy for family caregivers. METHODS: Patient-caregiver dyads were randomized to a DY, CY or usual care (UC) arm. DY and CY interventions were delivered over 15 sessions. Caregivers completed assessments of their depressive symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and caregiving reactions at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks, and a subset completed qualitative interviews at 12 weeks. RESULTS: With a consent rate of 63%, 67 dyads were randomized. Attendance in the DY was higher than in the CY group (session means, DY = 12.23, CY = 9.00; p = 0.06). Caregivers (79% female; 78% non-Hispanic White; mean age, 53 years) reported significantly more subjective benefit in the CY arm than in the DY arm (d = 2.1; p < .01), which was consistent with the qualitative assessment. There were medium effect sizes for improved mental QOL (d = 0.46) and financial burden (d = 0.53) in favor of the CY over the UC group. Caregivers in the CY group reported more caregiving esteem (d = 0.56) and less health decline (d = 0.60) than those in the DY group. CONCLUSION: Individual rather than dyadic delivery may be a superior supportive care approach for this vulnerable caregiver population. A larger, adequately powered efficacy trial is warranted.

Videoconferenced Yoga Interventions for Cancer Patients and their Caregivers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Report from a Clinician's Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The acceptability of videoconferencing delivery of yoga interventions in the advanced cancer setting is relatively unexplored. The current report summarizes the challenges and solutions of the transition from an in-person (ie, face-to-face) to a videoconference intervention delivery approach in response to the Coronavirus Disease pandemic. METHOD: Participants included patient-family caregiver dyads who were enrolled in ongoing yoga trials and 2 certified yoga therapists who delivered the yoga sessions. We summarized their experiences using recordings of the yoga sessions and interventionists' progress notes. RESULTS: Out of 7 dyads participating in the parent trial, 1 declined the videoconferenced sessions. Participants were between the ages of 55 and 76 and mostly non-Hispanic White (83%). Patients were mainly male (83%), all had stage III or IV cancer and were undergoing radiotherapy. Caregivers were all female. Despite challenges in the areas of technology, location, and setting, instruction and personal connection, the overall acceptability was high among patients, caregivers, and instructors. Through this transition process, solutions to these challenges were found, which are described here. CONCLUSION: Although in-person interventions are favored by both the study participants and the interventionists, videoconference sessions were deemed acceptable. All participants had the benefit of a previous in-person experience, which was helpful and perhaps necessary for older and advanced cancer patients requiring practice modifications. In a remote setting, the assistance of caregivers seems particularly beneficial to ensure practice safety. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT03948100; NCT02481349.