Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 96
Filter
2.
Cancer Med ; 11(10): 2096-2105, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1748778

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Oncology telemedicine was implemented rapidly after COVID-19. We examined multilevel correlates and outcomes of telemedicine use for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for cancer. METHODS: Upon implementation of a telemedicine platform at a comprehensive cancer center, we analyzed 468 consecutive patient RT courses from March 16, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients were categorized as using telemedicine during ≥1 weekly oncologist visits versus in-person oncologist management only. Temporal trends were evaluated with Cochran-Armitage tests; chi-squared test and multilevel multivariable logistic models identified correlates of use and outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 33% used telemedicine versus 67% in-person only oncologist management. Temporal trends (ptrend  < 0.001) correlated with policy changes: uptake was rapid after local social-distancing restrictions, reaching peak use (35% of visits) within 4 weeks of implementation. Use declined to 15% after national "Opening Up America Again" guidelines. In the multilevel model, patients more likely to use telemedicine were White non-Hispanic versus Black or Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.72; p = 0.04) or receiving ≥6 fractions of RT versus 1-5 fractions (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.29-8.80; p < 0.001). Model intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated 43% utilization variation was physician-level driven. Treatment toxicities and 30-day emergency visits or unplanned hospitalizations did not differ for patients using versus not using telemedicine (p > 0.05, all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Though toxicities were similar with telemedicine oncology management, there remained lower uptake among non-White patients. Continuing strategies for oncology telemedicine implementation should address multilevel patient, physician, and policy factors to optimize telemedicine's potential to surmount-and not exacerbate-barriers to quality cancer care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Oncologists , Radiation Oncology , Telemedicine , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Policy
3.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci ; 26(3): 1049-1055, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1708988

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The reorganization of cancer services and the increased work burden on health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be associated with significant negative psychological impact. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological well-being of oncology clinicians in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomly invited 1500 oncology clinicians including medical oncologists, clinical oncologists, radiation oncologists and surgical oncologists from 17 countries in the MENA region to complete a web-based survey to determine the level of psychological stress during the COVID-19 pandemic from October 2020 to January 2021. The questionnaire was based on the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Generalized Anxiety Disorders Scale (GAD-7) and WHO Well-being Index (WHO-5). The data was analyzed using SPSS version 21 and the difference between groups was measured by t-test and ANOVA. RESULTS: Overall, 520 (35%) clinicians including 368 (71%) males and 152 (29%) females participated in the survey with 247 (47%) participants between the ages of 36 to 45 years. Average score of 29.6 for males and 30.2 on PSS-10, indicative of high-perceived stress in both the genders. Compared to males, females had significantly higher anxiety levels on GAD-7 scale (p=.04), but this difference in stress level and well-being was not observed on PSS-10 (p=.134) and WHO -5 well-being index (p=.709). Clinicians of age 25-35 years had significantly higher anxiety levels on GAD-7 scale (p=.004) and higher stress on PSS (p=.000) as compared to other age groups. Age over 55 years was associated with lower levels of anxiety and stress on GAD-7 and PSS. Oncology clinicians working in public sector experienced significantly lower stress as compared to private sector on PSS scale (p=.041). CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety and stress levels among oncology clinicians have significantly increased in COVID-19 pandemic in the MENA region. Females and young clinicians had higher anxiety and stress, while oncology clinicians over the age of 55 years and working in the public sector reported less stress and anxiety. The general wellbeing of clinicians was well preserved even in a highly stressful and anxious situation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Oncologists/psychology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Adult , Africa, Northern/epidemiology , Anxiety/epidemiology , Female , Health Surveys/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Middle East/epidemiology , Pandemics , Private Sector , Public Sector
5.
CMAJ ; 193(28): E1118-E1119, 2021 07 19.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1609096
6.
Cancer Med ; 11(2): 530-538, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1606588

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists' biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions. METHODS: We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists. RESULTS: We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non-squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non-targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents <5 years out of training were more likely to cite their concerns about waiting for results as a reason for not ordering biomarker testing (42%, vs. 19% with ≥6 years of experience). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents reported high biomarker testing rates in patients with NSCLC. Treatment decisions were impacted by test turnaround time and associated with practice setting and physician specialization and experience.


Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/diagnosis , Clinical Decision-Making , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Oncologists , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/therapy , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States
7.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0261478, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1598396

ABSTRACT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows patients with serious illnesses to access investigational drugs for "compassionate use" outside of clinical trials through expanded access (EA) Programs. The federal Right-to-Try Act created an additional pathway for non-trial access to experimental drugs without institutional review board or FDA approval. This removal of oversight amplifies the responsibility of physicians, but little is known about the role of practicing physicians in non-trial access to investigational drugs. We undertook semi-structured interviews to capture the experiences and opinions of 21 oncologists all with previous EA experience at a major cancer center. We found five main themes. Participants with greater EA experience reported less difficulty accessing drugs through the myriad of administrative processes and drug company reluctance to provide investigational products while newcomers reported administrative hurdles. Oncologists outlined several rationales patients offered when seeking investigational drugs, including those with stronger health literacy and a good scientific rationale versus others who remained skeptical of conventional medicine. Participants reported that most patients had realistic expectations while some had unrealistic optimism. Given the diverse reasons patients sought investigational drugs, four factors-scientific rationale, risk-benefit ratio, functional status of the patient, and patient motivation-influenced oncologists' decisions to request compassionate use drugs. Physicians struggled with a "right-to-try" framing of patient access to experimental drugs, noting instead their own responsibility to protect patients' best interest in the uncertain and risky process of off-protocol access. This study highlights the willingness of oncologists at a major cancer center to pursue non-trial access to experimental treatments for patients while also shedding light on the factors they use when considering such treatment. Our data reveal discrepancies between physicians' sense of patients' expectations and their own internal sense of professional obligation to shepherd a safe process for patients at a vulnerable point in their care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Compassionate Use Trials , Drugs, Investigational/therapeutic use , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Oncologists/psychology , Therapies, Investigational , Drug Approval , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Motivation , Patient Rights , Physician-Patient Relations , United States
9.
Cancer Med ; 11(4): 1119-1135, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1589162

ABSTRACT

A novel coronavirus, or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified as the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In early 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 the sixth public health emergency of international concern. The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially affected many groups within the general population, but particularly those with extant clinical conditions, such as having or being treated for cancer. Cancer patients are at a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 since the malignancy and chemotherapy may negatively affect the immune system, and their immunocompromised condition also increases the risk of infection. Substantial international efforts are currently underway to develop specific methods for diagnosing and treating COVID-19. However, cancer patients' risk profiles, management, and outcomes are not well understood. Thus, the main objective of this review is to discuss the relevant evidence to understand the prognosis of COVID-19 infections in cancer patients more clearly, as well as helping to improve the clinical management of these patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/etiology , Neoplasms/immunology , SARS-CoV-2 , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Humans , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/therapy , Oncologists , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Severity of Illness Index , Telemedicine
10.
Integr Cancer Ther ; 20: 15347354211063504, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1556291

ABSTRACT

Integrative oncology has developed for about 20 years in some countries; however, integrative oncology is still a relative new term for most China's oncologists. Thus, it is essential to summarize the experience and expertise, share details of differing existing models and discuss future perspectives to help define and guide practice in integrative oncology in China. This study presents a summary of the basic characteristics, status, and challenges of integrative oncology in China, and also reports on China's integrative physicians' service delivery, clinical practice and research patterns of integrative oncology by an online national survey, including 405 oncologists. It is easy for cancer patients to access to integrative therapies in China. Public funding is sufficient for integrative oncology in China, and services are often provided through general hospitals and academic hospitals. Most (95.3%) of oncologists showed a positive attitude toward the development of integrative oncology. More than half (55.6%) of the oncologists worried about the influence on integrative oncology of COVID-19, especially for routine treatment, follow-up and holding seminars. We found that integrative oncology in China has swiftly developed in recent years. However, we suggest that standard diagnosis and treatment patterns and national professional guidelines should be set up as soon as possible.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Integrative Oncology , Oncologists , China , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Curr Treat Options Oncol ; 22(12): 117, 2021 11 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1527505

ABSTRACT

OPINION STATEMENT: COVID-19 has transformed the care we provide to gynecologic oncology patients. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with gynecologic cancer, it has affected our patient's ability to undergo recommended surveillance and has made an impact on every caregiver providing care during this time. Herein we review the current literature on the impact of COVID-19 on gynecologic oncology and highlight new approaches and innovations that have resulted in gynecologic cancer care as a result of the pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on the field of gynecologic oncology has been profound. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with cancer, it has also challenged the very ethics with which we practice medicine. The equitable distribution of resources is paramount to upholding the Hippocratic Oath which we all invoke. The COVID-19 pandemic has stripped this oath down to its very core, forcing all medical practitioners to scrutinize who gets what resources and when. As the pandemic continues to unfold, the question remains - in the setting of a strained and overburdened healthcare system, how do we maximize beneficence to one group of patients, while maintaining non-maleficence to others? As gynecologic oncologists, we are responsible for advocating for our patients to ensure that the quality of their cancer care is not compromised, while also not overutilizing resources that are sorely needed for the care of COVID-19 victims, and not making them more likely to succumb to COVID-19 by the very nature of the treatment we provide. The effects of the pandemic are far-reaching and broad, and many of these are yet to be determined. Future studies are needed to analyze how the above-utilized strategies in GYN cancer care during the pandemic will impact the long-term outcomes of our patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Genital Neoplasms, Female/therapy , Infection Control/methods , Oncologists/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Genital Neoplasms, Female/virology , Humans
13.
Cancer Treat Res Commun ; 28: 100445, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1368630

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Over half of the 1.5 million individuals globally who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with stage II-III disease. Understanding clinician attitudes towards treatment for this group is paramount to contextualise real-world outcomes and plan future trials. The aim of this study was to assess clinician awareness of trials assessing the optimal duration of CRC adjuvant therapy, their attitudes towards shorter treatment and their self-reported practice. METHODS: A survey was developed using OnlineSurveys® and distributed to clinicians in April 2019, with a follow-up survey disseminated to a subset of respondents in August 2020. Microsoft Excel® and Stata® were used for analysis. RESULTS: 265 clinicians replied to the first survey, with the majority aware of findings from the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Therapy collaboration and contributory trials. Practice change was greatest for patients under 70 with low-risk stage III CRC, with most uncertainty around using 3-months of doublet chemotherapy for high-risk stage II disease. In August 2020, clinicians (n = 106) were more likely to use 3-months of FOLFOX for low-risk stage III disease and 3-months of CAPOX for stage II disease compared to April 2019. There was no indication that the COVID-19 pandemic had enduring changes on treatment decisions beyond those made in response to trial evidence. DISCUSSION: Clinicians use a risk-stratified approach to treat CRC the adjuvant setting. Lower utilisation of doublet chemotherapy for older and stage II patients has affected the extent of trial implementation. Active dialogue regarding how trial results apply to these groups may improve consensus.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Colorectal Neoplasms/drug therapy , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Aged , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Fluorouracil/therapeutic use , Humans , Leucovorin/therapeutic use , Longitudinal Studies , Oncologists , Organoplatinum Compounds/therapeutic use , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Self Report , Surveys and Questionnaires , Time Factors
14.
ESMO Open ; 6(4): 100215, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1330817

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Young oncologists are at particular risk of professional burnout, and this could have a significant impact on their health and care of their patients. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced rapid changes in professionals' jobs and training, with the consequent physical and psychological effects. We aimed to characterize burnout levels and determinants in young oncologists, and the effects of the pandemic on their training and health. METHODS: Two online surveys were conducted among oncology residents and young oncology specialists in Spain. The first addressed professional burnout and its determinants before the COVID-19 pandemic, while the second analyzed the impact of the pandemic on health care organization, training, and physical and psychological health in the same population. RESULTS: In total, 243 respondents completed the first survey, and 263 the second; 25.1% reported significant levels of professional burnout. Burnout was more common among medical oncology residents (28.2%), mainly in their second year of training. It was significantly associated with a poor work-life balance, inadequate vacation time, and the burnout score. Nearly three-quarters of respondents (72%) were reassigned to COVID-19 care and 84.3% of residents missed part of their training rotations. Overall, 17.2% of this population reported that they had contracted COVID-19, 37.3% had scores indicating anxiety, and 30.4% moderate to severe depression. Almost a quarter of young oncologists (23.3%) had doubts about their medical vocation. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout affects a considerable number of young oncologists. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on causes of burnout, making it even more necessary to periodically monitor it to define appropriate detection and prevention strategies.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Oncologists , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Burnout, Psychological/epidemiology , Burnout, Psychological/prevention & control , Humans , Medical Oncology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
15.
JCO Oncol Pract ; 18(1): e89-e97, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331970

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has created a new set of problems for clinicians. This study examines the experiences of oncologists providing care to seriously ill persons near the end of life in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Between January 2020 and August 2020, we conducted semistructured, in-depth individual interviews with 22 purposefully sampled oncologists from practices enrolled in the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium. Deidentified transcripts of the interviews were examined using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our respondents described several novel problems created by the COVID-19 pandemic, including: (1) ethical challenges, (2) the need to manage uncertainty-physically and emotionally-on the part of both patients and oncologists, and (3) the difficulty of integrating technology and communication for seriously ill persons. These problems were made more complex by features of the pandemic: resource scarcity (and the need to fairly allocate poor resources), delays in care, high levels of fear, and the increased importance of advance care planning. Nonabandonment served as a way to cope with increased stress, and the use of telemedicine became an increasingly important medium of communication. CONCLUSION: This study offers an in-depth exploration of the problems faced by oncologists as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and how they navigated them. Optimal decision making for seriously ill persons with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic must include open acknowledgment of the ethical challenges involved, the emotions experienced by both patients and their oncologists, and the urgent need to integrate technology with compassionate communication in determining patient preferences.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Oncologists , Communication , Empathy , Humans , Pandemics , Prognosis , SARS-CoV-2
16.
J Immunother Cancer ; 9(7)2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318086

ABSTRACT

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%-12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.


Subject(s)
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/diagnosis , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/adverse effects , Immunotherapy/adverse effects , Nervous System Diseases/diagnosis , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Consensus , Humans , Nervous System Diseases/chemically induced , Nervous System Diseases/immunology , Neurologists/statistics & numerical data , Oncologists/statistics & numerical data , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Patient Care Team/statistics & numerical data
17.
JCO Oncol Pract ; 17(9): e1318-e1326, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1311267

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The use of telemedicine expanded dramatically in March 2020 following the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to assess oncologist perspectives on telemedicine's present and future roles (both phone and video) for patients with cancer. METHODS: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Electronic Health Record (EHR) Oncology Advisory Group formed a Workgroup to assess the state of oncology telemedicine and created a 20-question survey. NCCN EHR Oncology Advisory Group members e-mailed the survey to providers (surgical, hematology, gynecologic, medical, and radiation oncology physicians and clinicians) at their home institution. RESULTS: Providers (N = 1,038) from 26 institutions responded in Summer 2020. Telemedicine (phone and video) was compared with in-person visits across clinical scenarios (n = 766). For reviewing benign follow-up data, 88% reported video and 80% reported telephone were the same as or better than office visits. For establishing a personal connection with patients, 24% and 7% indicated video and telephone, respectively, were the same as or better than office visits. Ninety-three percent reported adverse outcomes attributable to telemedicine visits never or rarely occurred, whereas 6% indicated they occasionally occurred (n = 801). Respondents (n = 796) estimated 46% of postpandemic visits could be virtual, but challenges included (1) lack of patient access to technology, (2) inadequate clinical workflows to support telemedicine, and (3) insurance coverage uncertainty postpandemic. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine appears effective across a variety of clinical scenarios. Based on provider assessment, a substantial fraction of visits for patients with cancer could be effectively and safely conducted using telemedicine. These findings should influence regulatory and infrastructural decisions regarding telemedicine postpandemic for patients with cancer.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Oncologists , Telemedicine , Female , Humans , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
18.
Int J Clin Pract ; 75(10): e14556, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1295015
19.
JCO Oncol Pract ; 17(7): e427-e438, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1278136

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis profoundly affecting oncology care delivery. PURPOSE: This study will describe the occupational and personal consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncologist well-being and patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four virtual focus groups were conducted with US ASCO member oncologists (September-November 2020). Inquiry and subsequent discussions centered on self-reported accounts of professional and personal COVID-19 experiences affecting well-being, and oncologist recommendations for well-being interventions that the cancer organization and professional societies (ASCO) might implement were explored. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-five oncologists were interviewed: median age 44 years (range: 35-69 years), 52% female, 52% racial or ethnic minority, 76% medical oncologists, 64% married, and an average of 51.5 patients seen per week (range: 20-120). Five thematic consequences emerged: (1) impact of pre-COVID-19 burnout, (2) occupational or professional limitations and adaptations, (3) personal implications, (4) concern for the future of cancer care and the workforce, and (5) recommendations for physician well-being interventions. Underlying oncologist burnout exacerbated stressors associated with disruptions in care, education, research, financial practice health, and telemedicine. Many feared delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Oncologists noted personal and familial stressors related to COVID-19 exposure fears and loss of social support. Many participants strongly considered working part-time or taking early retirement. Yet, opportunities arose to facilitate personal growth and rise above pandemic adversity, fostering greater resilience. Recommendations for organizational well-being interventions included psychologic or peer support resources, flexible time-off, and ASCO and state oncology societies involvement to develop care guidelines, well-being resources, and mental health advocacy. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected oncologist burnout, fulfillment, practice health, cancer care, and workforce. It illuminates where professional organizations could play a significant role in oncologist well-being.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Oncologists , Adult , Burnout, Psychological , Female , Humans , Male , Minority Groups , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Support Care Cancer ; 29(12): 7497-7503, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1260589

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As a result of technological developments in healthcare services, telemedicine is becoming widespread. We aimed to determine the effect of COVID-19 on Turkish medical oncologists' opinions of telemedicine through a survey. METHODS: This study was conducted using an online questionnaire linked to an invitation e-mail sent to the members of the Turkish Medical Oncology Association mailing group between May and July 2020. RESULTS: Of the 110 (73 males and 37 females) medical oncologists who answered the questionnaire, the average age was 43.9 ± 7.29 (range: 31-64) years, and the majority of the respondents were academics. The most commonly used telemedicine method was store and forward (69.7%). Telemedicine use during clinical visits and multidisciplinary councils increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic (p < 0.001 in both cases). CONCLUSION: The use of telemedicine increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the pandemic has led oncologists to view telemedicine more positively.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Oncologists , Telemedicine , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Perception , SARS-CoV-2 , Turkey/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL