The experience of surgical cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large cancer centre in London.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on the experiences of patients across all health disciplines, especially those of cancer patients. The study aimed to understand the experiences of cancer patients who underwent surgery during the first two waves of the pandemic at Guy's Cancer Centre, which is a large tertiary cancer centre in London. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted for this study. Firstly, a survey was co-designed by the research team and a patient study group. Patients who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic were invited to take part in this survey. Results were analysed descriptively. Three discussion groups were then conducted to focus on the main themes from the survey findings: communication, COVID-19 risk management and overall experience. These discussion groups were transcribed verbatim and underwent a thematic analysis using the NVivo software package. RESULTS: Out of 1657 patients invited, a total of 250 (15%) participants took part in the survey with a mean age of 66 (SD 12.8) and 52% females. The sample was representative of a wide range of tumour sites and was reflective of those invited to take part. Overall, the experience of the cancer patients was positive. They felt that the safety protocols implemented at the hospital were effective. Communication was considered key, and patients were receptive to a change in the mode of communication from in-person to virtual. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the immense challenges faced by our Cancer Centre, patients undergoing surgery during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic had a generally positive experience with minimal disruptions to their planned surgery and ongoing care. Together with the COVID-19 safety precautions, effective communication between the clinical teams and the patients helped the overall patient experience during their surgical treatment.

Isolation and loneliness as pathways to heavy drinking early in the pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: social isolation and forced quarantines during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic coincided with a steep and persistent rise in alcohol consumption among US adults. While the association between loneliness and drinking is well established, less is known about the impact of social isolation (a known correlate of loneliness) and the interplay between these two variables in relation to drinking. METHODS: we recruited US adults using the MTurk platform for an online survey in early April 2020. The initial survey was followed up with a second wave, 30 days later in mid to late May. Data from the current analyses focus on this second wave of data collection. RESULTS: we found significant direct effects on heavy drinking for both social isolation (c' = 0.495; P < .01) and loneliness (b = 0.071; P < .05). We also found a significant indirect path from social isolation to heavy drinking through social isolation's impact on elevating loneliness (a = 0.919; P < .001). The indirect effect of social isolation on the composite measure of heavy drinking was 0.0652 (0.919 × 0.071) and was significant at the 0.05 level after bootstrapping estimates of the variance were constructed. CONCLUSIONS: those most isolated early in the pandemic were at increased risk for heavy drinking, in part because their social isolation led to increased loneliness. Post-pandemic research is needed to explore whether the relationships that stemmed from social isolation during the pandemic led to a persistent pattern of behavioral risk that maintained high rates of heavy drinking.

Alcohol-related Consequences: Factor Structure and Associations With Trait Mindfulness and Drinking Motivations.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine if motivations to use alcohol (coping and social motivations) mediate the relationship between trait mindfulness and a variety of alcohol-related consequences and to determine if the relationship between motivations to use alcohol and alcohol-related consequences is moderated by alcohol use. We determined the factor structure of positive and negative consequences of alcohol use and used this structure as outcomes across eight moderated mediation models. METHODS: Data were obtained from 296 undergraduate students to confirm the alcohol-related consequences factor structure and to test eight moderated-mediation models. RESULTS: Four alcohol-related consequences scales (romantic/sexual, positive, mild negative, and severe negative consequences) were confirmed. The motive of drinking to cope significantly mediated the relationship between trait mindfulness and all four of the alcohol-related consequences scales. Drinking to socialize did not significantly mediate the relationship between trait mindfulness and all of the alcohol-related consequences scales. CONCLUSIONS: The identified four-factor structure suggests that alcohol-related consequences should be assessed in a more specific manner. Additionally, different motivations for alcohol use relate differentially to trait mindfulness and different alcohol-related consequences; drinking to cope is particularly problematic for this population. Future research on the usefulness of promoting mindfulness to reduce problematic drinking appears warranted.

Subjective Stress Appraisals Over Time: the Evolving Structure of the COVID-19 Stressor Scale.

The COVID-19 Stressors Scale measures individuals' appraisals of stressors related to the pandemic. Measurement of perceptions of stressors is necessary to understand the socioemotional impacts of not only the COVID-19 pandemic, but other disasters. The study examined the factor structure of the scale among adults in the U.S. over six time points. A shortened version was used, and the fit was examined over time. The results of the study show contextual appraisals change over time and offer important implications for the measurement of stressfulness of disasters, a critical step in designing and assessing impacts of social programs aimed to reduce the deleterious effects of disasters.

Differential effects of COVID-19 stressor types on mental health and moderating roles of coping strategies.

Stress exposure often leads to poor mental health, but whether certain types of stressors predict differential levels of mental health symptoms and whether coping differentially moderates these associations remain untested. This study examined whether COVID-19 stressor types (financial-, activity-, and infection-related) differentially predicted subsequent mental health (general distress, posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS), and positive states of mind) and whether different types of coping moderated these relationships. In April, 2020, questionnaires assessing the impact of COVID-19 on daily life were administered to an adult sample across the US (N = 1,546); 861 (55.7%) of whom completed questionnaires one month later. Nearly all stressor types independently predicted each aspect of mental health. Behavioral disengagement moderated links between both activity- and infection-related stressors and mental health. Seeking emotional social support moderated links between infection-related stressors and both general distress and positive states of mind as well as activity-related stressors and general distress. Positive reappraisal moderated links between financial-related stressors and positive states of mind. Acceptance coping predicted better mental health but was not a significant moderator. Stressor types and coping strategies are important determinants of effects of COVID-19 on mental health; our findings suggest possible screening and intervention implications and directions for future research.

Second Primary Malignancies in Patients with a Neuroendocrine Neoplasm in England.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) may often develop other malignancies. This study aimed to identify the frequency at which these second malignancies occurred in England. METHODS: Data were extracted from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) on all patients diagnosed with a NEN at one of eight NEN site groups between 2012 and 2018: appendix, caecum, colon, lung, pancreas, rectum, small intestine, and stomach. WHO International Classification of Disease Edition-10 (ICD-10) codes were used to identify patients who had been diagnosed with an additional non-NEN cancer. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for tumours diagnosed after the index NEN were produced for each non-NEN cancer type by sex and site. RESULTS: A total of 20,579 patients were included in the study. The most commonly occurring non-NEN cancers after NEN diagnosis were the prostate (20%), lung (20%), and breast (15%). Statistically significant SIRs were observed for non-NEN cancer of the lung (SIR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.55-2.22), colon (SIR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.40-2.27), prostate (SIR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.31-1.86), kidney (SIR = 3.53, 95% CI: 2.72-4.59), and thyroid (SIR = 6.31, 95% CI: 4.26-9.33). When stratified by sex, statistically significant SIRs remained for the lung, renal, colon, and thyroid tumours. Additionally, females had a statistically significant SIR for stomach cancer (2.65, 95% CI: 1.26-5.57) and bladder cancer (SIR = 2.61, 95% CI: 1.36-5.02). CONCLUSION: This study found that patients with a NEN experienced a metachronous tumour of the lung, prostate, kidney, colon, and thyroid at a higher rate than the general population of England. Surveillance and engagement in existing screening programmes are required to enable earlier diagnosis of second non-NEN tumours in these patients.

The impact of 2 weeks wait referral on survival of head and neck cancer patients.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the association between 2 weeks wait referral and survival in the head and neck cancer. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of consecutively discussed new head and neck cancer patients at large United Kingdom Cancer Alliance including two tertiary referral hospitals and two district general hospital. RESULTS: A total of 276 cancer patients were included for analysis. Patients referred under the 2 weeks wait had were seen and diagnosed sooner from referral (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001 respectively). However, this did not translate into better survival outcomes. No survival differences were seen between those patients that were managed within the proposed cancer targets and those that were not. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 weeks wait head and neck cancer pathway did not offer a survival advantage. Targeting the delay in referral as well as delay in treatment to prevent late-stage cancer presentation is paramount. Fulfilment of cancer time targets do not translate into better outcomes and should not be prioritised to clinical judgement.

Social Media Use Early in the Pandemic Predicted Later Social Well-Being and Mental Health in a National Online Sample of Adults in the United States.

Social media use increased early in the Covid-19 pandemic, but little information is available about its impact. The present study examined associations of frequency of use of different social media and the motives for use with subsequent social well-being and mental health. Data were gathered on a nationwide sample of 843 Americans during the first wave of lockdowns and infections in mid-April 2020, and again five weeks later. Participants were adults ages 20 to 88 years old (M = 39.3 years old) recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Controlling for age and gender, greater frequency of Facebook and video chat app use predicted higher levels social support but also higher levels of cumulative Covid-19-related stress appraisals and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Greater use of video chat apps also predicted less loneliness. Greater use of both Instagram and Snapchat predicted more anxiety and cumulative Covid-19-related stress appraisals. Greater use of Instagram also predicted higher levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms. Motives for use (e.g., connect with others, waste time/avoid responsibility, online video gaming with others) also differentially predicted social well-being and mental health. Results indicate that greater social media use early in the pandemic was often associated with more distress and lower levels of social well-being but, effects varied depending on types, frequency, and motivations for use. Overall, the study revealed that social media use related to social well-being and mental health in complex ways.

Emotion dysregulation and family functioning moderate family caregiving burden during the pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Since the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, additional risk factors affecting family caregivers' mental health have arisen. Therefore, personal stress coping strategies and family dynamics became important factors in reducing the impact of the pandemic on family caregivers' mental health. The present research aimed to estimate the association between COVID-19 stressors and family caregiving burden. Moreover, moderating effects of emotion dysregulation and family functioning on this association were investigated. METHODS: This study analyzed data collected in April 2021 from 154 family caregivers (Mage = 38.79, SDage = 9.36, range = 22-64) recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). The impact of COVID-19 stressors on family caregiving burden was tested, and moderating impacts of emotion dysregulation and family functioning were also investigated. RESULTS: Both COVID-19 stress exposure and stress appraisal were positively associated with family caregiving burden. Emotion dysregulation and problematic family functioning were also positively associated with family caregiving burden. A significant moderating effect of emotion dysregulation was found, such that family caregivers with higher emotion dysregulation were likely to feel more caregiving burden when they experienced more COVID-19 stressors. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The current research highlighted the role of emotion regulation in reducing the negative impact of COVID-19 stressors on family caregiving burden. The research also emphasizes the need for intervention programs to improve emotion regulation strategies to decrease family caregiving burden during the pandemic.

Radical cancer treatment is safe during COVID-19: the real-world experience of a large London-based Comprehensive Cancer Centre during the first wave.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID pandemic, there was a paucity of data to support clinical decision-making for anticancer treatments. We evaluated the safety of radical treatments which were delivered whilst mitigating the risks of concurrent COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Using descriptive statistics, we report on the characteristics and short-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing radical cancer treatment during the first COVID-19 wave compared to a similar pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: Compared to 2019, the number of patients undergoing radical treatment in 2020 reduced by: 28% for surgery; 18% for SACT; and 10% for RT. Within SACT, 36% received combination therapy, 35% systemic chemotherapy, 23% targeted treatments, 5% immunotherapy and 2% biological therapy. A similar proportion of RT was delivered in 2019 and 2020 (53% vs. 52%). Oncological outcomes were also similar to pre-COVID-19. The COVID-19 infection rates were low: 12 patients were positive pre surgery (1%), 7 post surgery (<1%), 17 SACT patients (2%) and 3 RT patients (<1%). No COVID-19-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst there were fewer patients receiving radical anticancer treatments, those who did receive treatment were treated in a safe environment. Overall, cancer patients should have the confidence to attend hospitals and be reassured of the safety measures implemented.

The impact of hospital attendance on COVID-19 infection in cancer patients: an assessment of data from Guy's Cancer.

Objective: The authors monitored positivity rates of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 tests during the second wave of COVID-19 at Guy's Cancer Centre. Methods: Logistic regression was used to investigate factors associated with asymptomatic COVID-19 positivity rates between 1 December 2020 and 28 February 2021 (n = 1346). Results: Living 20-40 km and 40-60 km from the alpha variant was associated with a reduced chance of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test compared with 0-20 km (odds ratio [OR]: 0.20; CI: 0.07-0.53 and OR: 0.38; CI: 0.15-0.98, respectively). An increased number of tests was associated with an increased chance of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (OR: 1.10; CI: 1.04-1.16). Conclusion: The COVID-19 positivity rate of asymptomatic cancer patients is partly due to increased testing, with some contribution from the proximity of the patient population to the epicenter of the alpha variant.

The UK's second wave of COVID-19 was partly driven by the emergence of the alpha variant in the southeast of England in November 2020, spreading farther to become the predominant variant across England in December 2020. The alpha variant is associated with a greater transmissibility rate, posing an increased risk to the vulnerable population. This raised concerns about the welfare of cancer patients, as the disease and its treatment can lower one's ability to fight infection. This resulted in some cancer treatments being interrupted or stopped on the grounds of clinical safety and some follow-up care being disrupted. In order to investigate the factors associated with asymptomatic COVID-19 positivity rates between 1 December 2020 and 28 February 2021, the authors gathered information on the number of tests taken per cancer patient at Guy's and extracted data from Guy's approved research database, which houses all routinely collected clinical data on cancer patients. This included demographic data, such as post code and age, as well as number of visits to the hospital. From their analysis, the authors concluded that living closer to the epicenter of the alpha variant was associated with a high positivity rate; also, the more tests taken, the more likely the patients are to test positive. Therefore, the authors can conclude that attending the hospital does not increase the risk of transmission.

Long-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients: the experience from Guy's Cancer Centre.

Background: Few studies have investigated the long-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients. Materials & methods: The authors conducted a telephone survey on the long-term symptoms of cancer patients from Guy's Cancer Centre. They compared patients whose symptoms occurred/got worse over 4 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis (classified as long COVID) with patients who did not develop symptoms or whose symptoms occurred/got worse in the first 4 weeks after diagnosis. Results: The authors analyzed responses from 80 patients with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis; 51.3% (n = 41) developed long COVID. The most common symptoms were fatigue, breathlessness and cognitive impairment. Conclusion: Findings suggest that over half of the cancer population will experience long-term effects after their initial COVID-19 diagnosis. Further studies are required to validate the findings of this study.

Cancer staff in an NHS cancer center: infections, vaccination, stress and well-being support during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of the pandemic on the well-being of cancer staff and determine the uptake of opt-in mitigation strategies. Materials & methods: Staff at Guy's Cancer Centre (London, UK) participated in an anonymized survey between May and August 2021. Results: Of 1182 staff, 257 (21.7%) participated. Ethnicity (p = 0.020) and comorbidity burden (p = 0.022) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Of 199 respondents, seven (3.6%) were vaccine-hesitant, which was associated with low flu vaccine uptake (p < 0.001). Greater stress was associated with younger age (p = 0.030) and redeployment (p = 0.012). Lack of time and skepticism were barriers to using mental well-being resources. Conclusion: Albeit cautious, numerous trends the authors observed echo those in the published literature. Improved accessibility, awareness and utility of mental well-being resources are required.

COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The pandemic has applied immense pressure to healthcare workers, putting their physical and mental well-being at risk. However, the impact for cancer staff, specifically, is less known. In a survey of 257 cancer staff at Guy's Cancer Centre (London, UK; May­August 2021), the authors found that staff of particular ethnic groups, or with pre-existing illnesses, appeared more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2. Few staff were hesitant about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, appearing more common among those not receiving the flu vaccine. For many, stress increased over time. However, barriers prevent staff from using mental well-being resources. With findings from larger studies, this work will be useful for strategies protecting cancer staff well-being.

Safe provision of systemic anti-cancer treatment for urological cancer patients during COVID-19: a tertiary centre experience in the first wave of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Safe provision of systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT) during the COVID-19 pandemic remains an ongoing concern amongst clinicians. METHODS: Retrospective analysis on uro-oncology patients who continued or started SACT between 1st March and 31st May 2020 during the pandemic (with 2019 as a comparator). RESULTS: 441 patients received SACT in 2020 (292 prostate, 101 renal, 38 urothelial, 10 testicular) compared to 518 patients in 2019 (340 prostate, 121 renal, 42 urothelial, 15 testicular). In 2020, there were 75.00% fewer patients with stage 3 cancers receiving SACT (p < 0.0001) and 94.44% fewer patients receiving radical treatment (p = 0.00194). The number of patients started on a new line of SACT was similar between both years (118 in 2019 vs 102 in 2020; p = 0.898) but with 53.45% fewer patients started on chemotherapy in 2020 (p < 0.001). Overall, 5 patients tested positive for COVID-19 (one asymptomatic, one mild, two moderate, one severe resulting in death). Compared to 2019, 30-day mortality was similar (1.69% in 2019 vs 0.98% in 2020; p = 0.649) whereas 6-month mortality was lower (9.32% in 2019 vs 1.96% in 2020; p = 0.0209) in 2020. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that delivery of SACT to uro-oncology patients during COVID-19 pandemic may be safe in high-incidence areas with appropriate risk-reduction strategies.

Long-Term Adherence and Persistence to Low-Dose Aspirin for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

Methods: Using information from electronic health records in Germany and the United Kingdom (UK) in a common data model, we followed adults with ≥2 low-dose aspirin prescriptions (75-100 mg) during 2007-2018 for up to 10 years. Included individuals had no low-dose aspirin prescriptions in the year before the follow-up started (date of first low-dose aspirin prescription) and ≥12 months' observation. Adherence was determined using the medication possession ratio (MPR), and persistence was defined as continuous treatment disregarding gaps between prescriptions of <60 days; analyses were undertaken according to indication (primary/secondary CVD prevention). Results: We identified 144,717 low-dose aspirin users from Germany and 190,907 from the UK. Among patients with 5-10 years' follow-up, median adherence among secondary CVD prevention users was 60% in Germany and 75% in the UK. Among primary prevention users, median adherence was 50% for both countries. Persistence among secondary CVD prevention users was 58.3% at 2 years, 47.0% at 5 years, 35.2% at 10 years (Germany), and 67.5% at 2 years, 58.0% at 5 years, and 46.8% at 10 years (UK). Among primary CVD prevention users, persistence was 52.8% at 2 years, 41.6% at 5 years, 32.1% at 10 years (Germany), 56.3% at 2 years, 45.4% at 5 years, and 33.8% at 10 years (UK). Conclusions: Long-term adherence and persistence to low-dose aspirin are suboptimal; efforts for improvement could translate into a lower CVD burden in the general population.

Time Trends and Treatment Pathways in Prescribing Individual Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: An Observational Study of More than Three Million Patients from Europe and the United States.

Background: Data directly comparing trends in the use of different oral anticoagulants (OACs) among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) from different countries are limited. We addressed this using a large-scale network cohort study in the United States (US), Belgium, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: We used nine databases (claims or electronic health records) that had been converted into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model with analysis performed using open-source analytical tools. We identified adults with AF and a first OAC prescription, either vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), from 2010 to 2017. We described time trends in use, continuation, and switching. Results: In 2010, 87.5%-99.8% of patients started on a VKA. By 2017, the majority started on a DOAC: 87.0% (US), 88.3% (Belgium), 93.1% (France), 88.4% (Germany), and 86.1%-86.7% (UK). In the UK, DOACs became the most common starting OAC in 2015, 2-3 years later than elsewhere. Apixaban was the most common starting OAC by 2017, 50.2%-57.8% (US), 31.4% (Belgium), 45.9% (France), 39.5% (Germany), and 49.8%-50.5% (UK), followed by rivaroxaban, 24.8%-32.5% (US), 25.7% (Belgium), 38.4% (France), 24.9% (Germany), and 30.2%-31.2% (UK). Long-term treatment was less common in the US than in Europe, especially the UK. A minority of patients switched from their index OAC in the short and long term. Conclusions: From 2010 to 2017, VKA use had significantly declined and DOAC use had significantly increased in the US and Europe. Apixaban was the most prescribed OAC in 2017, followed by rivaroxaban.

Patterns of Stress and Wellbeing Among Families Enrolled in Early Head Start/Head Start During COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected low-income families in the U.S., particularly those with young children (Kalluri et al., 2021). This longitudinal study describes the resources, stress, and health and wellbeing of low-income families enrolled in an Early Head Start/Head Start program for two cumulative program years before and during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. We found having more resources (higher income, higher education levels, full time employment) prior to the onset of COVID-19 was correlated with better wellbeing and lower stress throughout the pandemic. Implications and directions for future research include understanding the specific types of supports that programs like EHS/HS provided during COVID-19 and how families benefitted from them.

Exercise prehabilitation during neoadjuvant chemotherapy may enhance tumour regression in oesophageal cancer: results from a prospective non-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence for the use of exercise in cancer patients and data supporting enhanced tumour volume reduction following chemotherapy in animal models. To date, there is no reported histopathological evidence of a similar oncological benefit in oesophageal cancer. METHODS: A prospective non-randomised trial compared a structured prehabilitation exercise intervention during neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery versus conventional best-practice for oesophageal cancer patients. Biochemical and body composition analyses were performed at multiple time points. Outcome measures included radiological and pathological markers of disease regression. Logistic regression calculated ORs with 95% CI for the likelihood of pathological response adjusting for chemotherapy regimen and chemotherapy delivery. RESULTS: Comparison of the Intervention (n=21) and Control (n=19) groups indicated the Intervention group had higher rates of tumour regression (Mandard TRG 1-3 Intervention n=15/20 (75%) vs Control n=7/19 (36.8%) p=0.025) including adjusted analyses (OR 6.57; 95% CI 1.52 to 28.30). Combined tumour and node downstaging (Intervention n=9 (42.9%) vs Control n=3 (15.8%) p=0.089) and Fat Free Mass index were also improved (Intervention 17.8 vs 18.7 kg/m2; Control 16.3 vs 14.7 kg/m2, p=0.026). Differences in markers of immunity (CD-3 and CD-8) and inflammation (IL-6, VEGF, INF-y, TNFa, MCP-1 and EGF) were observed. CONCLUSION: The results suggest improved tumour regression and downstaging in the exercise intervention group and should prompt larger studies on this topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03626610.

The Protective Role of Parent Resilience on Mental Health and the Parent-Child Relationship During COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic is linked to particularly potent psychological effects for children and their caregivers while families adjust to new daily routines for work, education, and self-care. Longitudinal associations are presented from a national sample of 271 parents (mean age = 35.29 years, 48.5% female) on resilience, mental health and stress indicators, and parenting outcomes. Multigroup path model results indicate significant associations between resilience and parent stress or parent perceived child stress initiates a sequence of significant linkages to parent depression, followed by caregiver burden and parent-child relationship quality. This final set of linkages between depression and both parenting outcomes were significantly stronger for men, who also reported higher rates of perceived child stress. Results suggest that fathers' depression symptoms and associated spill-over to perceived child stress is producing stronger effects on their parenting experiences than effects reported by mothers.

Short-term impacts of COVID-19 on family caregivers: Emotion regulation, coping, and mental health.

BACKGROUND: The negative mental health impact of coronavirus disease 2019-related stressors may be heightened for those caring for children, who bear responsibity for their welfare during disasters. AIM: Based on the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, we inquired whether caregivers' emotion regulation and coping behavior were associated with posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). MATERIALS & METHODS: Data were collected through a national online survey in April 2020, and again 60 days later. RESULTS: Of the 801 longitudinal cases, 176 (63.6% female; mean age = 33.5) reported caring for minors in their homes during the pandemic. Over 20% of caregivers experienced clinically concerning PTSS, rates higher than their noncaregiving counterparts. Regression analysis indicates caregivers' baseline mental health symptoms and emotion regulation predicted PTSS 60 days later. DISCUSSION: Implications for needed parenting supports among families experiencing traumatic stress are provided. CONCLUSION: Anxiety symptoms at baseline were the most significant and consistent contributor to all models and were significantly higher among those with clinically concerning levels of PTSS suggesting a clear intervention target.