Evaluating the childcare needs of cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: About one-fifth of newly diagnosed cancer patients are parents to young children. These patients are at higher risk of psychosocial stress and inability to attend treatment due to having to balance their own healthcare needs with childcare duties. This study aims to explore the impact of childcare on cancer parents and elicit their perspectives on potential supports. The results could help inform the implementation of suitable childcare programs to remove this barrier in accessing care. METHODS: Patients at a large Canadian cancer treatment center were screened by oncologists for having minor children at home. Secure electronic surveys were then distributed to consenting participants. Domains surveyed included patient demographics, childcare burden, impact on treatment, and preference for childcare supports. RESULTS: The mean age of correspondents was 43.9 (range 33-54), 46 patients (92%) were female, and breast cancer was the most common primary tumor. The median number of children per correspondent was two, and their mean age was 8.4. Balancing childcare with cancer treatment had a significant impact on self-reported stress levels for most correspondents. Twenty (40%) participants had to reschedule and 7 (14%) participants missed at least one appointment due to childcare conflicts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to childcare resources decreased while childcare responsibilities increased. Three-quarters of correspondents reported that a flexible childcare would make it easier for them to adhere to appointment schedules. CONCLUSION: Childcare is a significant psychosocial barrier for patients accessing cancer care. Our results indicate that most parents undergoing treatment may benefit from hospital-based childcare services.

Navigating Radiation Therapy During COVID-19 Using YouTube as a Source of Information.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought considerable change to the practice of radiotherapy. In the meantime, patients are increasingly turning to online resources for health information, with YouTube being one of the biggest platforms. However, little is known about what information is being disseminated to cancer patients about radiotherapy in the context of COVID-19. Therefore, this study aims to characterize and assess YouTube videos on radiotherapy during COVID-19. A YouTube search using the terms "Radiation therapy COVID-19", "Radiation therapy coronavirus", "Radiotherapy COVID-19", and "Radiotherapy coronavirus" was completed using a clear-cache web browser. The top 50 videos were collected from each search. After applying pre-determined exclusion criteria, each video was assessed for general parameters, source, and content. Two raters were used to ensure interrater reliability. One hundred five unique videos resulted from the four searches. Ninety-eight per cent were published in the last year. The median video length was 6 min and 54 s, and the median number of views was 570. Most videos were from the USA (58%). The majority of videos were published by a commercial channel (31%), non-profit organization (28%), or healthcare facility (26%). Forty-two per cent of the videos covered a topic related to radiotherapy during the pandemic. Bias was identified in 6% of videos. YouTube information on radiotherapy during COVID-19 is non-specific and can be misleading. The results of this study highlight the need for healthcare providers to proactively address patient information needs and guide them to appropriate sources of information.

Depression in cancer: quality assessment of online patient education resources.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric comorbidities are common among cancer patients. However, little is known about the quality of online information regarding these conditions. This study uses a validated tool to systematically determine the strengths and limitations of websites addressing depression in cancer patients. METHODS: The term "depression in cancer patients" was searched online using the search engines Google, Yippy, and Dogpile. A set of predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria was applied to all search results, which yielded 48 websites for inclusion. A validated rating tool was used to score the websites based on the six domains of Affiliation, Accountability, Interactivity, Structure & Organization, Readability, and Content Quality. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 48 websites evaluated, 50% were commercial. 63% of websites identified authorship, 54% cited reliable sources, 37% provided links, and 38% were updated within the last 2 years. 94% of websites featured a search engine and 60% had at least four structural tools. Average readability was at a grade 12.3 level using the Flesch-Kincaid scale and 11.3 using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index. The most completely and accurately covered topics of depression were symptoms and treatment-83% and 73% respectively. Its prevention and prognosis were not covered by any of the websites. CONCLUSIONS: A validated rating tool was applied to evaluate the quality of online information for depression in cancer patients. Website accountability was poor, readability was often at a level that is too difficult for the lay audience, and the topics of prevention and prognosis were seldom covered.