We still cannot breathe: Applying intersectional ecological model to COVID-19 survivorship.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Individuals with historically oppressed identities, such as disabled or racialized minorities, face inequities across all societal institutions, including education, criminal justice, and healthcare. Systems of oppression (e.g., ableism, racism) lead to inequities that have ultimately contributed to disproportionate rates of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in the United States. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, increased public attention regarding police brutality toward Black people and the reinvigoration of the national Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement further highlighted the detrimental effects of oppressive systems and the urgent need to promote equity in the United States. The disproportionate number of COVID-19-related deaths and police brutality are inextricably connected, as both are products of oppression toward minoritized communities. The co-occurrence of the pandemic and BLM movement protests also creates an opportunity for critical discourse on the intersection of ableism and anti-Black racism specifically within the field of rehabilitation psychology. RESEARCH METHOD/DESIGN: The overarching goals of this review are to apply the Intersectional Ecological Model with the addition of the chronosystem to illustrate how systems of oppression lead to health disparity in COVID-19 survivorship and to provide recommendations to promote health equity. Conclusions/Implication: As the COVID-19 pandemic shifts to an endemic and efforts to eliminate oppressive systems continue, rehabilitation psychologists have an ongoing, evolving, and shared responsibility to employ socially-responsive solutions to promote optimal functioning for patients, families, and communities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Managing Survivorship after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With improvement in survival after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), it has become important to focus on the late complications experienced by the survivors that may lead to late mortality and morbidity to be able to provide patient-centered care across the transplant continuum. The goals of this article are to describe the status of literature on late complications in HCT survivors; offer a brief overview of the status of the screening, prevention, and management of these complications; and identify opportunities for future practice and research. RECENT FINDINGS: This is an exciting time for the field with increasing awareness about survivorship issues. Studies are moving beyond description to examining pathogenesis of these late complications and identifying biomarkers. The eventual goal is to promote changes in our transplant techniques to decrease the incidence of these complications as well as help develop interventions targeting these late effects. There is also an emphasis on improving health care delivery models to provide optimal post-HCT management for medical and psychosocial complications through close coordination between multiple stakeholders and leveraging technology to help address the barriers in delivery of care to fulfill the unmet needs in this area. The increasing population of HCT survivors with their burden of late effects underscores the need for concerted efforts to improve long-term medical and psychosocial outcomes for this group.

Long-term survivorship and results in lower limb arthroplasty: a registry-based comparison study.

INTRODUCTION: Popularity of joint replacement surgery due to ever aging population surges the demand for a proper national joint registry. Our Chinese University of Hong Kong - Prince of Wales Hospital (CUHK-PWH) joint registry has passed the 30th year. The aims of this study are 1) summarize our territory-wide joint registry which has passed the 30th year since establishment and 2) compare our statistics with other major joint registries. METHODS: Part 1 was to review the CUHK-PWH registry. Demographic characteristics of our patients who underwent knee and hip replacements had been summarized. Part 2 was a series of comparisons with registries from Sweden, UK, Australia and New Zealand. RESULTS: CUHK-PWH registry captured 2889 primary total knee replacements (TKR) (110 (3.81%) revision) and 879 primary total hip replacements (THR) (107 (12.17%) revision). Median Surgery time of TKR was shorter than THR. Clinical outcome scores were much improved after surgery in both. Uncemented of hybrid in TKR were most popular in Australia (33.4%) and 40% in Sweden and UK. More than half of TKR and THR patients showed the highest percentage with ASA grade 2. New Zealand reflected the best cumulative percentage survival 20 years after surgery of 92.2%, 76.0%, 84.2% survivorship 20 years after TKR, unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) and Hip. CONCLUSION: A worldwide accepted patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is recommended to develop to make comparisons among registries and studies feasible. Completeness of registry data is important and useful to improve surgical performance through data comparisons from different regions. Funding from government on sustaining registries is reflected. Registries from Asian countries have yet to be grown and reported.

Disruption in Cancer Care During Early Survivorship due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Patient Satisfaction with Telemedicine.

PURPOSE: The extent to which adults with cancer during early survivorship experienced disruptions in care due to COVID-19 pandemic, as well as their experiences with the transition to telemedicine, remains understudied. METHODS: We examined cancer care disruption and satisfaction with telemedicine due to COVID-19 in 361 adults (Mage = 59.42, SD = 11.3) with breast, prostate or colorectal cancer during early survivorship. The Telemedicine Satisfaction and Usefulness Questionnaire (TSUQ) and patient self-report Cancer Care Disruption Index (CCDI) was administered via RedCap survey. RESULTS: The most prevalent areas of patient-reported cancer care disruption included supportive care appointments canceled/postponed (57%), in-person appointments changed to virtual appointments (56%), social work services canceled (32%), palliative care appointments canceled/postponed (24%), elective surgeries related to cancer postponed (23%), and screening tests postponed (19%). Regarding patient satisfaction with telemedicine, 78.0% "agree" or "strongly agree" that they were satisfied with the overall telemedicine system. Most survivors reported satisfaction with their doctor dealing with problems (88.2%), doctors answering patient questions (92.7%), and engaged patients in care (86.1%), However, 49.3% of cancer patients disagreed that virtual visits are as satisfying as in-person visits and 35.6% were dissatisfied with the lack of physical contact during virtual visits. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer survivorship care, with supportive care, social work services, and mode of delivery (in-person vs. virtual) particularly affected. The downstream impact of cancer care disruption in those living with cancer during the pandemic as well as the quality of telehealth modality as part of cancer survivorship care delivery await future investigation.

The continuing evolution of a cancer prevention, screening, and survivorship ECHO: A second year of implementation.

INTRODUCTION: An estimated 39,010 Indiana residents were diagnosed with cancer in 2021. To address the cancer burden, Project ECHO (Extension Community Healthcare Outcomes) was launched in 2019 in Indiana to build specialty healthcare capacity among non-specialists. Due to positive outcomes from the pilot year, the Cancer Prevention, Screening, and Survivorship ECHO was implemented for a second year. The purpose of this study was to measure the participation and regional impact of this ECHO. METHODS: ECHO sessions occurred twice monthly from October 2020 to October 2021. Changes were implemented in response to feedback from the pilot year, including making the curriculum more practical for learners and adding accreditation opportunities. Participant information and feedback was extracted from electronic surveys for review. RESULTS: There were 24 ECHO sessions with 213 unique participants, increased from 140 unique participants in the pilot year. An average of 23.5 individuals attended each session, increased from 15.5 individuals per session. Enrolled participants served in a diverse set of roles and represented 247 zip codes, 30 Indiana counties, and 32 states across the United States, each of which increased from the pilot year. DISCUSSION: In this second year, this ECHO expanded to reach more participants with increased attendance and a more diverse distribution of roles within healthcare, which may be attributed to feedback-driven curriculum design. Cancer care is multi-disciplinary, with health educators, nurses, and administrators, each acting within the cancer care continuum. As a result, this ECHO has been adapted to serve an increasingly broad distribution of professionals. CONCLUSION: The second year of the Cancer Prevention, Screening, and Survivorship ECHO displayed increased overall enrollment and participation, greater diversity among participant roles, and a wider reach across Indiana and the United States.

International multicenter study comparing COVID-19 in patients with cancer to patients without cancer: Impact of risk factors and treatment modalities on survivorship.

Background: In this international multicenter study, we aimed to determine the independent risk factors associated with increased 30 day mortality and the impact of cancer and novel treatment modalities in a large group of patients with and without cancer with COVID-19 from multiple countries. Methods: We retrospectively collected de-identified data on a cohort of patients with and without cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and November 2020 from 16 international centers. Results: We analyzed 3966 COVID-19 confirmed patients, 1115 with cancer and 2851 without cancer patients. Patients with cancer were more likely to be pancytopenic and have a smoking history, pulmonary disorders, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and corticosteroid use in the preceding 2 wk (p≤0.01). In addition, they were more likely to present with higher inflammatory biomarkers (D-dimer, ferritin, and procalcitonin) but were less likely to present with clinical symptoms (p≤0.01). By country-adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses, cancer was not found to be an independent risk factor for 30 day mortality (p=0.18), whereas lymphopenia was independently associated with increased mortality in all patients and in patients with cancer. Older age (≥65y) was the strongest predictor of 30 day mortality in all patients (OR = 4.47, p<0.0001). Remdesivir was the only therapeutic agent independently associated with decreased 30 day mortality (OR = 0.64, p=0.036). Among patients on low-flow oxygen at admission, patients who received remdesivir had a lower 30 day mortality rate than those who did not (5.9 vs 17.6%; p=0.03). Conclusions: Increased 30 day all-cause mortality from COVID-19 was not independently associated with cancer but was independently associated with lymphopenia often observed in hematolgic malignancy. Remdesivir, particularly in patients with cancer receiving low-flow oxygen, can reduce 30 day all-cause mortality. Funding: National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Survivorship After Critical Illness and Post-Intensive Care Syndrome.

Improvements in critical care medicine have led to a marked increase in survivors of the intensive care unit (ICU). These survivors encounter many difficulties following ICU discharge. The term post -intensive care syndrome (PICS) provides a framework for identifying the most common symptoms which fall into three domains: cognitive, physical, and mental health. There are numerous risk factors for the development of PICS including premorbid conditions and specific elements of ICU hospitalizations. Management is complex and should take an individualized approach with interdisciplinary care. Future research should focus on prevention, identification, and treatment of this unique population.

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2022.

The number of cancer survivors continues to increase in the United States due to the growth and aging of the population as well as advances in early detection and treatment. To assist the public health community in better serving these individuals, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate triennially to estimate cancer prevalence in the United States using incidence and survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries, vital statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, and population projections from the US Census Bureau. Current treatment patterns based on information in the National Cancer Database are presented for the most prevalent cancer types by race, and cancer-related and treatment-related side-effects are also briefly described. More than 18 million Americans (8.3 million males and 9.7 million females) with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2022. The 3 most prevalent cancers are prostate (3,523,230), melanoma of the skin (760,640), and colon and rectum (726,450) among males and breast (4,055,770), uterine corpus (891,560), and thyroid (823,800) among females. More than one-half (53%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and two-thirds (67%) were aged 65 years or older. One of the largest racial disparities in treatment is for rectal cancer, for which 41% of Black patients with stage I disease receive proctectomy or proctocolectomy compared to 66% of White patients. Surgical receipt is also substantially lower among Black patients with non-small cell lung cancer, 49% for stages I-II and 16% for stage III versus 55% and 22% for White patients, respectively. These treatment disparities are exacerbated by the fact that Black patients continue to be less likely to be diagnosed with stage I disease than White patients for most cancers, with some of the largest disparities for female breast (53% vs 68%) and endometrial (59% vs 73%). Although there are a growing number of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based strategies and equitable access to available resources are needed to mitigate disparities for communities of color and optimize care for people with a history of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:409-436.

Older cancer survivors' perspectives and use of telehealth in their cancer survivorship care in the United States: A ResearchMatch® sample.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has resulted in reliance on telecommunication technologies for the provision of supportive cancer care. However, research on the use of these resources among older adults, who are the majority of cancer survivors, is limited. The objective of this study was to gather information on older cancer survivors' perspectives and use of telehealth their cancer survivorship care in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Potential participants were recruited through ResearchMatch® from December 2020-January 2021. Online semi-structured interviews were conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the participants' demographic and health characteristics. Content analysis were conducted by two independent coders for identification of common themes. Coding agreement was reached through consensus, and count comparisons of participant responses were made. RESULTS: The majority of respondents (n = 21; mean age = 73.5 ± 4.9) were female (57%), White (90%), and had a variety of cancer diagnoses. Participants reported using a variety of technology devices and telehealth products. Older cancer survivors (n = 10) endorsed telehealth video use for physical health concerns and basic check-ups, but some (n = 4) preferred in-person visits for major concerns and sensitive issues (e.g., mental health). Half of participants reported mobile health app use; however, ten participants did not use these apps as they felt the technology was not useful. Barriers to health technology use included missing face-to-face connections with providers, lack of familiarity with the technology, and perceived lack of utility and personalized telehealth platforms. Lastly, video-based conferencing and social media site use among seventeen participants was reported for social interaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that older cancer survivors utilize online platforms for their general health; however, they prefer in-person visits for serious issues and value personalization with telehealth. Despite from a highly educated sample of ResearchMatch® participants, these results can be used to inform clinicians and researchers about the appropriateness and provision of telehealth-based supportive care among older cancer survivors.

Center for Trauma Survivorship improves postdischarge follow-up and retention.

BACKGROUND: Although the need for high-level care persists postdischarge, severely injured trauma survivors have historically poor adherence to follow-up. We hypothesized that a dedicated Center for Trauma Survivorship (CTS) improves follow-up and facilitates postdischarge specialty care. METHODS: A retrospective study of "CTS eligible" trauma patients before (January to December 2017) and after (January to December 2019) creation of the CTS was performed. Patients with an intensive care unit stay ≥2 days or a New Injury Severity Score of ≥16 are CTS eligible. The before (PRE) cohort was followed through December 2018 and the after (CTS) cohort through December 2020. Primary outcome was follow-up within the hospital system exclusive of mental health and rehabilitative therapy appointments. Secondary outcomes include postdischarge surgical procedures and specialty-specific follow-up. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in demographics or hospital duration in the PRE (n = 177) and CTS (n = 119) cohorts. Of the CTS group, 91% presented for outpatient follow-up within the hospital system, compared with 73% in the PRE group (p < 0.001). In the PRE cohort, only 39% were seen by the trauma service compared with 62% in the CTS cohort (p < 0.001). Center for Trauma Survivorship patients also had increased follow-up with other providers (80% vs. 65%; p = 0.006). Notably, 33% of CTS patients had additional surgery compared with only 20% in the PRE group (p = 0.011). Center for Trauma Survivorship patients had more than 20% more outpatient visits (1,280 vs. 1,006 visits). CONCLUSION: Despite the follow-up period for the CTS cohort occurring during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting availability of outpatient services, our CTS significantly improved follow-up with trauma providers, as well as with other specialties. The CTS patients also underwent significantly more secondary operations. These data demonstrate that creation of a CTS can improve the postdischarge care of severely injured trauma survivors, allowing for care coordination within the health care system, retaining patients, generating revenue, and providing needed follow-up care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Breast Cancer Survivors' Satisfaction and Information Recall of Telehealth Survivorship Care Plan Appointments During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patient satisfaction and information recall after telehealth breast cancer survivorship visits with a nurse practitioner. SAMPLE & SETTING: Female survivors of breast cancer after their first visit with a nurse practitioner in the outpatient survivorship clinic post-treatment. METHODS & VARIABLES: Participants included female survivors who were originally diagnosed with stage 0-III breast cancer and have since completed an initial telehealth appointment to review the survivorship care plan. Survivors were invited to complete a 20-question electronic survey about their satisfaction and recall of visit information. RESULTS: 62 participants completed the survey and indicated an overall high level of satisfaction with telehealth survivorship appointments. Most recalled key survivorship information from the visit and felt the appropriate amount of information was discussed. Overall satisfaction was significantly correlated with the length and convenience of the appointment, and the personal manner and technical skills of the nurse practitioner. Survivors' age was not associated with significant differences in overall satisfaction. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Telehealth for initial survivorship visits demonstrated high satisfaction with telehealth and the overall visit as a low-cost intervention to treat symptoms.

Delivering colon cancer survivorship care in primary care; a qualitative study on the experiences of general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: With more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs' experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework. RESULTS: Overall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs' work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs' commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients' initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs' lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients' use of eHealth. CONCLUSIONS: GPs' opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register; NTR4860 . Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.

Impact of the COVID pandemic on survivors of childhood cancer and survivorship care: lessons for the future.

PURPOSE: The COVID pandemic has greatly impacted cancer care, with survivorship care being accorded low priority. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID pandemic on survivorship services at our centre, as well as on survivors of childhood cancer (CCS). METHODS: We analyzed the trends in survivorship care at our centre from March 2020 to June 2021 compared to previous years. We also conducted an online survey of adolescent and young adult (AYA-CCS) following up at the After Completion of Treatment Clinic, Mumbai, to assess the impact of the COVID pandemic and ensuing restrictions on our cohort of survivors. Sibling responses were used as comparator (CTRI/2020/11/029029). RESULTS: There was a decrease in in-person follow-ups and increase in remote follow-ups over the first few months of the pandemic. While in-person visits steadily increased after October 2020 and reached pre-pandemic numbers, distant follow-ups continue to be higher than pre-pandemic. Evaluable responses from the survey of 88 AYA-CCS and 25 siblings revealed new-onset health concerns in 29.5% of AYA-CCS, missed follow-up visit in 52% and varying degrees of mental health issues in 12.5%. While most survivors were able to cope with the stresses of the pandemic, 20% of siblings reported being unable to cope. CONCLUSIONS: Survivorship services continue to be affected well into the pandemic, with increased use of distant follow-ups. While AYA-CCS experienced significant physical, mental health issues and psychosocial concerns as a result of the COVID pandemic, they coped better than siblings during this stressful time, possibly due to multiple, holistic support systems including family, peer support groups and healthcare team.

Cancer prevention, screening, and survivorship ECHO: A pilot experience with an educational telehealth program.

INTRODUCTION: The American Cancer Society, Inc. (ACS) estimates that 37,940 Indiana residents were diagnosed with cancer in 2020, which remains the leading cause of death in the state. Across the cancer continuum, national goals have been established targeting recommended benchmarks for states in prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship. Indiana consistently falls below most goals for each of these targeted categories. METHODS: To address these disparities, we implemented Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) as a virtual telehealth educational platform targeted at local healthcare providers. ECHO programs utilize a novel tele-mentoring approach to the education of clinicians in a hub/spoke design. Sessions occurred twice monthly from September 2019 to September 2020 and consisted of a traditional didactic lecture and a case-based discussion led by participating providers. RESULTS: During the pilot year there were a total of 22 ECHO sessions with 140 different participants. On average, 15.5 spokes attended each session with increasing participation at the end of the year. Post-session surveys suggested generally favorable perception with 72% of respondents finding the quality "excellent." DISCUSSION: Given the increasing rate of recurrent participation toward the end of the pilot year in conjunction with the favorable survey responses following each session, it was felt that the program was overall successful and warranted continued implementation. CONCLUSION: The Project ECHO platform is a validated telehealth education platform that has the potential to impact cancer care at multiple points along the cancer continuum at the regional level.

Experiences of Young Adults With Lymphoma During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: To investigate the experiences of young adults with lymphoma during the COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS & SETTING: 8 young adults with Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma from one National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in the northeastern United States. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Secondary data analysis of a study that investigated the experiences of young adults with lymphoma during acute survivorship was used. Thematic analysis was chosen for the secondary data analysis methodology. FINDINGS: Three themes define the experiences of young adults with lymphoma during the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nurse-led survivorship care and education of young adults with cancer may mitigate COVID-19-related anxiety and threats.

Breast cancer survivorship in rural settings: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Rural breast cancer survivors (BCS) in the United States face unique challenges during survivorship, related to knowledge and accessibility of resources. Survivorship care plans should address five key areas that include surveillance and screening for new/reoccurring cancer; management of long-term effects of cancer treatment; health promotion; and care coordination/practice implications. To maximize the benefit of survivorship care for rural BCS, it is necessary to better understand their experiences and preferences. METHODS: A systematic review of the extant literature addressing the survivorship needs and interventions for rural BCS was conducted. The following databases were searched for reports published between January, 2007, and December, 2018: PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsycINFO (EBSCO), CAB Direct, and Sociological Abstracts. Reports published after 2007 with samples including and comprised of rural BCS in the United States were included. Screening of the search results followed PRISMA guidelines using Covidence systematic review software. RESULTS: Findings were extracted from 30 reports disseminating findings of 14 research studies. The five areas of a survivorship care were counted/accounted for during data extraction. The included reports concentrated on health promotion (e.g., weight loss and exercise) and the management of long-term effects of cancer treatment as key outcomes. There is a gap in the literature addressing care coordination, surveillance, and screening. CONCLUSION: Additional research including interventions for rural BCS that address more survivorship care areas would benefit this population and improve survivorship quality of life for rural BCS.