ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess the psychometric properties of the Coronavirus Information Overload scale (CovIO) and explore relationships between CovIO, its predictors and several health behaviours related to the COVID-19 pandemic, using Cancer Information Overload (CIO) scale results as a reference for comparison. METHODS: 2003 participants representative of the French adult population answered a self-administered questionnaire over two waves of polling (N1(June 2020)= 1003, N2(January 2021)= 1000). Respondents were randomized to fill CovIO or CIO scale. Psychometric properties of scales were evaluated with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Predictors were assessed using multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: CovIO scale showed satisfactory psychometric properties (α=0.86, ω=0.86, RMSEA=0.050) without any measurement invariance issue. CovIO increased between waves of sampling and was significantly linked to education, health literacy and trust in institutions among other variables. A negative relationship between information overload and preventive behaviours was also observed. CONCLUSION: The CovIO scale is a valid tool for assessing COVID-19 information overload. The dynamical formation of information overload and links with theorised predictors, especially, health literacy are confirmed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Longitudinal designs could help better understand the potential detrimental effect of information overload and improving public health campaigns. Interventions to reduce the degree of overload are needed.
ABSTRACT
Telehealth facilitates access to cancer care for patients unable to attend in-person consultations, as in COVID-19. This systematic review used the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate telehealth implementation and examine enablers and barriers to optimal implementation in oncology. MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched between January 2011-June 2022. Eighty-two articles representing 73 studies were included. One study explicitly used the RE-AIM framework to guide study design, conduct, or reporting. Reach (44%) and implementation (38%) were most commonly reported, maintenance (5%) least commonly. Key telehealth implementation enablers included professional-led delivery, patient-centred approaches, and positive patient perceptions. Key barriers included patient discomfort with technology, limited supporting clinic infrastructure, and poor access to reliable internet connection and videoconferencing. While a patient-centred and professional-supported approach enables telehealth implementation, technology and infrastructure constraints need surmounting for sustained implementation beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Medical Oncology , PandemicsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted oncology. With pandemic restrictions limiting close contact between individuals, telehealth (the use of teleconferencing/videoconferencing to conduct real-time medical consultations) has been increasingly utilised. This qualitative study aimed to explore adult cancer patient, caregiver, and clinician (doctor, nurse, allied health) telehealth experiences during COVID-19 in urban and rural Australian settings and identify potential enablers and barriers to sustained telehealth implementation. METHODS: English-speaking participants completed semi-structured interviews regarding their telehealth experiences since March 2020. Interviews ceased when data saturation occurred. Iterative thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 12 Pro. RESULTS: Thirty-four interviews (clinician=14, patient=13, caregiver=7) were conducted from April to August 2021. Analysis generated seven themes relating to telehealth use: 1) Acceptability as a form of consultation, 2) Impacts on healthcare provision, 3) Communication & relationships, 4) Efficient form of consultation, 5) Comfort of conducting telehealth in different environments, 6) Technological barriers and 7) Future preferences. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid uptake of telehealth during the pandemic has mostly been well-received, and telehealth can be appropriately used in oncology. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Barriers including providing appropriate facilities, technology, and telehealth training; and selecting appropriate patients must be addressed to enable sustained telehealth use in future cancer care.