Impact of COVID-19-related experiences on health-related quality of life in cancer survivors in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Little evidence exists on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivors, limiting recommendations to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in this population. We describe survivors' pandemic experiences and examine associations between COVID-19-related exposures, psychosocial experiences, and HRQoL. METHODS: Between May 2020-April 2021, survivors completed cross-sectional questionnaires capturing COVID-19-related exposures (e.g., exposure to virus, job loss); psychosocial experiences (i.e., COVID-19-related anxiety/depression, disruptions to health care and daily activities/social interactions, satisfaction with providers' response to COVID, financial hardship, perceived benefits of the pandemic, social support, and perceived stress management ability); and HRQoL. RESULTS: Data were collected from N = 11,325 survivors in the United States. Participants were mostly female (58%), White (89%) and non-Hispanic (88%), and age 63 on average. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis (23%). Eight percent of participants reported being exposed to COVID-19; 1% tested positive. About 6% of participants lost their jobs, while 24% lost household income. Nearly 30% avoided attending in-person oncology appointments because of the pandemic. Poorer HRQoL was associated with demographic (younger age; female; non-Hispanic White), clinical (Medicare; stage IV disease; hematologic/digestive/respiratory system cancer), and psychosocial factors (low perceived benefits and stress management ability; more disruption to health care and daily activities/social interactions; financial hardship). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-related stressors were associated with various psychosocial experiences in cancer survivors, and these psychosocial experiences were associated with HRQoL above and beyond demographic and clinical factors.

Financial toxicity among head and neck cancer patients and their caregivers: A cross-sectional pilot study.

Objectives: Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients experience greater financial toxicity than other cancer patients. Research on financial toxicity has concentrated on patients despite many informal caregivers sharing finances and reducing work hours to provide patient care. Thus, our pilot study: (1) assessed the feasibility of financial toxicity screening of HNC patients and their caregivers, and (2) described financial toxicity levels of HNC patients and their caregivers. Methods: We surveyed English-speaking adult HNC patients initiating treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and their informal caregivers. This survey assessed demographics and financial toxicity through the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure (0-44 range; lower score indicates higher financial toxicity). Screening feasibility was defined as ≥50% consent rate and ≥60% data completion rate. Results: Our sample included 27 HNC patients and 9 caregivers. They both had slightly lower consent and completion rates than our goals. Patients reported a median COST score of 27 while caregivers reported a median COST score of 16. Approximately 25.9% of patients and 44.4% of caregivers reported high financial toxicity (COST < 17.5). Caregivers reported high concerns about their future financial health and their ability to control the amount of their financial contributions to the patient's care. Conclusions: Patients and caregivers may require additional outreach approaches beyond emailed questionnaires to screen for their financial toxicity systematically. Future research is needed to replicate our results to determine whether differences in financial toxicity occur between patients and caregivers and identify areas of focus for interventions. Level of evidence: IV.

Impact of Patients' Companions on Clinical Encounters Between Black Patients and Their Non-Black Oncologists.

PURPOSE: The presence of caregivers or companions during clinical encounters influences the dynamics and outcomes of the encounters. Most prior studies of companions in clinical encounters focus on non-Hispanic White patients. However, there is generally lower-quality patient-physician communication during encounters with Black patients; these communication differences may contribute to racial health disparities. The purpose of the present study was to examine effects of the presence and active participation of companions on encounters between Black patients with cancer and non-Black oncologists. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data collected during a larger intervention study. Participants were Black patients with breast, colon, or lung cancer who had a treatment-discussion encounter with a participating non-Black medical oncologist. Video recordings of encounters were coded for patient, companion, and oncologist communication. After the encounter, patients reported perceptions of the recommended treatment; patients and oncologists reported perceptions of each other. RESULTS: Data from 114 patients and 19 oncologists were included in analyses. Only 47% of patients brought a companion to the encounter. Oncologists spent more time with accompanied Black patients, used more patient-centered communication with them, and perceived them as having more social support compared with unaccompanied Black patients. Oncologists reported that accompanied patients asked more questions. When companions participated more actively in the encounter, oncologists used more patient-centered communication. DISCUSSION: Bringing a companion to oncology appointments may be beneficial to Black patients because oncologists spend more time with patients, use more patient-centered communication, and perceive patients more positively, all of which may ultimately improve patient health and well-being outcomes.

In-home conversations of couples with advanced cancer: Support has its costs.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to describe the quality of naturalistic communication between patients with advanced cancer and their spouse caregivers using observational methods. We also assessed the association between patient and caregiver communication behaviors and psychological and physical health using the actor-partner interdependence model. METHODS: Data on 81 dyads were gathered as part of a prospective observational study. Patients with advanced cancer and their spouse caregivers completed demographic, physical health, and emotional well-being questionnaires. Cancer and relationship communication captured in "day-in-the-life" audio recordings were coded using Gottman's Turning System to assess the quality of bids for attention and responses. RESULTS: Bids for attention were most often informational (Low Bids) and responses were mostly positive and effortful (Turn Towards); patients and caregivers did not significantly differ in communication behavior. More effortful bids for attention (High Bids) were associated with more positive and effortful responses. Patient communication behaviors were significantly associated with caregiver emotional well-being, whereas caregiver communication behaviors were significantly associated with their own emotional well-being and patient physical health. CONCLUSIONS: While patients may benefit from caregivers' more positive and engaged communication at home, the emotional labor of focusing on and engaging the patient may take a toll on caregivers' own well-being. This work contributes to the understanding of what everyday communication looks like for patients with advanced cancer and their spouse caregivers and how this communication may impact physical and psychological health. Our findings provide a foundation to develop guidelines for psychosocial couple-based interventions.