Evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on supportive care needs, psychological distress and quality of life in UK cancer survivors and their support network.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic is having considerable impact on cancer care, including restricted access to hospital-based care, treatment and psychosocial support. We investigated the impact on unmet needs and psychosocial well-being. METHODS: One hundred and forty four participants (77% female), including people with cancer and their support networks, were recruited. The most prevalent diagnosis was breast cancer. Forty-one participants recruited pre-pandemic were compared with 103 participants recruited during the COVID-19 pandemic. We measured participants' unmet supportive care needs, psychological distress and quality of life. RESULTS: Half of our patient respondents reported unexpected changes to treatment following pandemic onset, with widespread confusion about their longer-term consequences. Although overall need levels have not increased, specific needs have changed in prominence. People with cancer reported significantly reduced anxiety (p = 0.049) and improved quality of life (p = 0.032) following pandemic onset, but support network participants reported reduced quality of life (p = 0.009), and non-significantly elevated anxiety, stress and depression. CONCLUSION: Psychological well-being of people with cancer has not been detrimentally affected by pandemic onset. Reliance on home-based support to compensate for the lost availability of structured healthcare pathways may, however, explain significant and detrimental effects on the well-being and quality of life of people in their support and informal care networks.

Cognitive biases predict symptoms of depression, anxiety and wellbeing above and beyond neuroticism in adolescence.

BACKGROUND: Adolescence represents a period of vulnerability to affective disorders. Neuroticism is considered a heritable risk factor for depression, but is not directly amenable to intervention. Therefore, it is important to identify the contributions of modifiable risk factors. Negative cognitive biases are implicated in the onset and maintenance of affective disorders in adults, and may represent modifiable risk factors in adolescence. AIM(S): This study sought to assess to what extent cognitive biases are able to predict depression, anxiety and wellbeing beyond that of neuroticism in adolescents. METHODS: Adolescents (N = 99), recruited from Scottish secondary schools (54.5% female; mean age = 14.7), ensured a sample representing the breadth of the mental health spectrum. In line with prevalence estimates, 18% of this sample demonstrated clinical levels of depression symptoms. Cognitive biases of autobiographical memory, self-referential memory, ambiguous scenarios interpretation, facial expression recognition, rumination and dysfunctional attitudes were assessed. Depression, anxiety, and wellbeing were indexed using the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, Spence Children's Anxiety Scale and the BBC Subjective Wellbeing Scale. RESULTS: Regression analyses demonstrated neuroticism to significantly predict depression, anxiety and wellbeing. The addition of cognitive biases resulted in a significant increase of explained variance with final models explaining just over 50% of variances of depression, anxiety and wellbeing. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that cognitive biases explain mental health symptoms over and above that of neuroticism. Depressive symptomology was particularly related to self-referential memory bias, while anxiety was predicted by interpretive bias. The key clinical implication is that targeting specific biases based on diagnostic features may be of particular benefit in alleviating distress and promoting wellbeing.