Hybrid Work from Home Clinical Academic Environment: A One-Year Follow-Up Survey of Attitudes and Beliefs of Members of a Department of Palliative Care, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine.

Context: Palliative, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine (PRIM) department members anonymously reported a positive experience with work from home (WFH) two months after its rapid pandemic transition in March 2020. Data are limited on the stability of such preferences and experiences over time. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to survey the attitudes and beliefs of PRIM employees toward remote work 16 months after the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic since vaccines and to determine changes in perceptions of WFH. Methods: All 138 PRIM employees were invited to participate in an anonymous survey from mid-July to mid-August 2021. The 30-question survey included demographics, perceptions toward WFH, and the pandemic. Results: One hundred fifteen (83%) employees completed the survey: 29 (74%) research, 62 (83%) clinicians, and 24 (100%) administrative personnel. Most were female (76%), 30-59 years old (88%), PRIM employees before May 2020 (89%), shared office space (52%), and had received either first or second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (88%). Overall experience (86%) and emotional response (74%) with WFH were positive and not significantly different from 2020 (p = 0.128 and 0.782, respectively). Positive experience was associated with having adequate equipment (p = 0.002), perception of productivity (p = 0.002), financial advantage (p = 0.002), and time demands caring for dependents (p = 0.038). Clinicians reported less positive response (78%, p = 0.002) and less productivity (49%, p = 0.002) with WFH and higher level of stress (54%, p = 0.026) since COVID-19. Employees continued to support WFH permanently (79%) for two or more days/week (82%). There was continued increased emotional exhaustion (71%) similar to 2020 (p = 0.868), and being asked to work partially or completely from home permanently was favored by 64% versus 97% and 96% of clinicians, research, and administrative, respectively (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Support for WFH was sustained a year later and after three pandemic waves. These findings serve as a model for future rapid work transitions and can help elucidate factors associated with stress and emotional exhaustion in a new post-COVID-19 work environment.

Meta-Analysis of Pharmacological, Nutraceutical and Phytopharmaceutical Interventions for the Treatment of Cancer Related Fatigue.

Purpose: In this study we aimed to estimate the effectiveness of pharmacological, nutraceutical, and phytopharmaceutical treatments on CRF. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Psych info, CINHAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 30 September 2021. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, nutraceutical and phytopharmaceutical interventions for treatment of CRF for at least one week duration and have used valid tool to assess severity of CRF as a primary or secondary outcome were considered. Results: 32 eligible studies (4896 patients) were reviewed. For the overall meta-analysis, the random effect models yielded the treatment effect (95% CI) of −0.29 (−0.48,−0.09), p < 0.001. The meta-analysis did not show significant reduction of CRF with treatment with ginseng (n = 6), guarana (n = 3), megestrol (n = 2), mistletoe (n = 3), psychostimulants (n = 14), SSRI/antidepressants (n = 2). Corticosteroids (n = 2) showed significant reduction in CRF with treatment effects of 0.94 (−1.21, −0.67), p <0.0001, respectively. Conclusions: In this study, overall meta-analysis of all studies demonstrates significant reduction of CRF using Pharmacological, Nutraceutical and Phytopharmaceutical interventions with a pooled standardized treatment effect of −0.29. Metanalysis of Corticosteroids studies showed significant reduction in CRF. Further studies are needed.