Dealing with fear of cancer recurrence - evaluation of a psychooncological group therapy program

Background: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a common burden for cancer patients. However, it is often challenging to find outpatient psychological support. Therefore, for the following study, an outpatient group adapted from Waadt et al.'s manual (2011)1 was developed to focus on specific needs of oncological patients experiencing FCR. Method(s): The group program consisted of 8 treatment sessions in smallsized closed groups with 6-8 patients and 2 therapists. The content was standardized and included behavioral strategies (psychoeducation, cognitive exposure, coping strategies and resources) as well as mindfulness. The intervention was evaluated by comparing FCR, anxiety and depression before and after the group using Wilcoxon-signed-rank-tests. Result(s): In total, N = 33 patients with varying oncological diagnoses participated in the group intervention. Out of these, 26 were female (76.5 %) and 7 were male (20.6 %). The mean age was 57.6 years, ranging from 42 to 77 years. A significant decrease in depression (z =-3.09, p = .002, n = 18), anxiety (z =-3.00, p = .003, n = 19) and FCR (z =-2.47, p = .013, n = 13) was found after finishing the group intervention. Moreover, our patients rated the techniques covered in the intervention as helpful for dealing with FCR and feasible in everyday life. Discussion(s): Despite limitations in implementation and recruitment of patients due to the Corona pandemic, results show positive changes in the group intervention with respect to FCR, anxiety, and depression. Conclusion(s): The results indicate that a structured group therapy program with a focus on FCR for oncological patients can be an effective and feasible intervention improving outpatient psychooncological care.

S1 Guideline for prioritisation in gastrointestinal cancer care -scarcity of ressources in the pandemic context

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to deviations in all sectors of cancer care. We present multidisciplinarily approved recommendations for ethically and empirically based prioritisation of procedures in times of scarce resources for patients with colorectal and pancreatic cancer. Method(s): The CancerCOVID consortium conducted qualitative and quantitative studies on ethical challenges and psychosocial stress of patients and health care professionals in cancer care. For empirical analyses we obtained data from AOK Plus, the main health insurance in Saxony, AIO (Arbeitsgemeinschaft internistische Onkologie) cancer centers, the institute of Pathology Bochum, the ColoPredict Registry and data of outpatient care from the BNHO (Berufsverband der Hamatologen und Onkologen) and Onkotrakt AG. A selective literature review of international data and guidelines focussing on the effects of the pandemic on cancer care and allocation of resources was conducted. Structured group discussions on justified criteria for prioritisation were held with experts from oncology, ethics, law and health research. Recommendations for prioritisation were formulated as S1 guideline with approval of 9 AWMF Medical Societies, 22 multidisciplinary experts and patient representatives. Result(s): The main principle for decisions on prioritisation in times of scarce resources is the minimisation of individual and aggregated harm. In case of relevant risk of harm from a possible low priority classification or postponement prioritization decisions should be made individually for the respective patients according to the multiple-eyes principle. Decision making should involve different disciplines and professions depending on local infrastructure. We concretised recommendations for 5 areas in cancer care. Conclusion(s): Guidelines based on a broad multidisciplinary consensus can give ethically and empirically based support in medical decision making when resources are scarce. This can provide relief for decision-makers and facilitate transparency and trust of patients and population.

External Validation of the 4C Mortality Score and the qSOFA for Different Variants of Concerns of SARS-CoV-2 Using Data of the NAPKON Cross-Sectoral Cohort Platform (SUEP)

Background. Numerous predictive clinical scores with varying discriminatory performance have been developed in the context of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To support clinical application, we test the transferability of the frequently applied 4C mortality score (4C score) to the German prospective Cross-Sectoral Platform (SUEP) of the National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON) compared to the non COVID-19 specific quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA). Our project aims to externally validate these two scores, stratified for the most prevalent variants of concerns (VOCs) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Germany. Methods. A total of 685 adults with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection were included from NAPKON-SUEP. Patients were recruited from 11/2020 to 03/2022 at 34 university and non-university hospitals across Germany. Missing values were complemented using multiple imputation. Predictive performance for in-hospital mortality at day of baseline visit was determined by area under the curve (AUC) with 95%-confidence interval (CI) stratified by VOCs of SARS-CoV-2 (alpha, delta, omicron) (Figure 1). Figure 1: Study flow chart with inclusion criteria and methodological workflow. Results. Preliminary results suggest a high predictive performance of the 4C score for in-hospital mortality (Table 1). This applies for the overall cohort (AUC 0.813 (95%CI 0.738-0.888)) as well as the VOC-strata (alpha: AUC 0.859 (95%CI 0.748-0.970);delta: AUC 0.769 (95%CI 0.657-0.882);omicron: AUC 0.866 (95%CI 0.724-1.000)). The overall mortality rates across the defined 4C score risk groups are 0.3% (low), 3.2% (intermediate), 11.6% (high), and 49.5% (very high). The 4C score performs significantly better than the qSOFA (Chi2-test: p=0.001) and the qSOFA does not seem to be a suitable tool in this context. Table 1: Discriminatory performance of the 4C Mortality Score and the qSOFA score within the validation cohort NAPKON-SUEP stratified by the Variant of Concerns of SARS-CoV- 2. Conclusion. Despite its development in the early phase of the pandemic and improved treatment, external validation of the 4C score in NAPKON-SUEP indicates a high predictive performance for in-hospital mortality across all VOCs. However, since the qSOFA was not specifically designed for this predictive issue, it shows low discriminatory performance, as in other validation studies. Any interpretations regarding the omicron stratum are limited due to the sample size.

A Tale of Two Cities: Software Developers Working from Home during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the world to its core and has provoked an overnight exodus of developers who normally worked in an office setting to working from home. The magnitude of this shift and the factors that have accompanied this new unplanned work setting go beyond what the software engineering community has previously understood to be remote work. To find out how developers and their productivity were affected, we distributed two surveys (with a combined total of 3,634 responses that answered all required questions) weeks apart to understand the presence and prevalence of the benefits, challenges, and opportunities to improve this special circumstance of remote work. From our thematic qualitative analysis and statistical quantitative analysis, we find that there is a dichotomy of developer experiences influenced by many different factors (that for some are a benefit, while for others a challenge). For example, a benefit for some was being close to family members but for others having family members share their working space and interrupting their focus, was a challenge. Our surveys led to powerful narratives from respondents and revealed the scale at which these experiences exist to provide insights as to how the future of (pandemic) remote work can evolve.

Survey Instruments for "How Was Your Weekend?" Software Development Teams Working From Home During COVID-19

This document describes the survey instruments from our paper "How Was Your Weekend?" Software Development Teams Working From Home During COVID-19 as well as how to access them.

"How Was Your Weekend?" Software Development Teams Working From Home During COVID-19

The mass shift to working at home during the COVID-19 pandemic radically changed the way many software development teams collaborate and communicate. To investigate how team culture and team productivity may also have been affected, we conducted two surveys at a large software company. The first, an exploratory survey during the early months of the pandemic with 2,265 developer responses, revealed that many developers faced challenges reaching milestones and that their team productivity had changed. We also found through qualitative analysis that important team culture factors such as communication and social connection had been affected. For example, the simple phrase "How was your weekend?" had become a subtle way to show peer support. In our second survey, we conducted a quantitative analysis of the team cultural factors that emerged from our first survey to understand the prevalence of the reported changes. From 608 developer responses, we found that 74% of these respondents missed social interactions with colleagues and 51% reported a decrease in their communication ease with colleagues. We used data from the second survey to build a regression model to identify important team culture factors for modeling team productivity. We found that the ability to brainstorm with colleagues, difficulty communicating with colleagues, and satisfaction with interactions from social activities are important factors that are associated with how developers report their software development team's productivity. Our findings inform how managers and leaders in large software companies can support sustained team productivity during times of crisis and beyond.

Comparison of the characteristics and mortality of acute kidney injury in patients with COVID-19 and other respiratory infections: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous studies have indicated a coherency between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and acute kidney injury (AKI), indicating poor outcomes. However, most studies only included patients with COVID-19 and lacked a control group. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and prognostic impact of AKI in patients with COVID-19 in comparison with other respiratory tract infections. METHOD: The prospective single-center observational case-control COronaVIrus surviVAl (COVIVA, clinicaltrials.gov NCT04366765) study performed at the University Hospital Basel Switzerland consecutively enrolled patients presenting to the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 between March 23 and May 31, 2020. The final diagnosis that led to the inclusion in the study was adjudicated by physicians after reviewing all available medical data including laboratory test results 30 days after discharge. For this analysis, we compared patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with patients tested negative but with an adjudicated diagnosis of upper or lower respiratory tract infection including pneumonia. Primary outcome measure was death at 30 days, secondary outcomes were AKI incidence, renal recovery and need for renal replacement therapy. AKI was defined according to the serum creatinine criteria of the 2012 KDIGO clinical practice guideline. RESULTS: Of the 1086 patients included, 507 had a final adjudicated diagnosis of respiratory tract infection and were eligible for this analysis. Of those, 183 (36%) had a positive PCR swab test for SARS-CoV-2. Baseline characteristics were comparable between patients with and without COVID-19. AKI occurred in 95 patients (19%) with a higher incidence (30%, 95%CI 24-37 versus 12%, 95%CI 9-17, p<0.001) and a higher severity (KDIGO stage 3, 22% versus 10%, p=0.003) in patients with COVID-19 as compared to controls, respectively. Need for intensive care (22% versus 6%, p<0.001) and requirement for RRT were higher in patients with COVID-19 (8 patients (4.4%) versus 2 patients (0.62%);p=0.01). Renal recovery at discharge in survivors was similar in patients with (64%) and without COVID-19 (48%, p=0.175). Survival analysis identified AKI as a predictor of 30-day mortality independent of COVID-19 status (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 3.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.55-7.63, p=0.002), but COVID-19 patients with AKI carried the highest risk (aHR 4.24, 95%CI 1,82-9.88, p<0.001). (Figure 1) CONCLUSION: AKI occurs more frequently and more severely in patients with COVID-19 compared to other respiratory tract infections. It is associated with an increased risk for death, with the highest risk observed in COVID-19 patients. This underlines the augmented burden of AKI during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Figure Presented).

Please Turn Your Cameras On: Remote Onboarding of Software Developers during a Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the way that software development teams onboard new hires. Previously, most software developers worked in physical offices and new hires onboarded to their teams in the physical office, following a standard onboarding process. However, when companies transitioned employees to work from home due to the pandemic, there was little to no time to develop new onboarding procedures. In this paper, we present a survey of 267 new hires at Microsoft that onboarded to software development teams during the pandemic. We explored their remote onboarding process, including the challenges that the new hires encountered and their social connectedness with their teams. We found that most developers onboarded remotely and never had an opportunity to meet their teammates in person. This leads to one of the biggest challenges faced by these new hires, building a strong social connection with their team. We use these results to provide recommendations for onboarding remote hires.