Cancer survivors with sub-optimal patient-centered communication before and during the early COVID-19 pandemic.
Jiyeong Kim, Nathan P Fairman, Melanie S Dove and 2 others
PMID 37406471WHAT IT FOUND
When compared directly, the prevalence of optimal patient-centered communication did not significantly differ before and during early COVID-19 among 2,579 cancer survivors.
After accounting for sociodemographic and health factors, survivors during COVID-19 were less likely to report optimal communication overall and about managing uncertainty.
Key findings
01When compared directly, optimal overall patient-centered communication prevalence was 35.4% before and 29.1% during early COVID-19, and the difference was not significant.
02In adjusted models, cancer survivors during COVID-19 were less likely to report optimal patient-centered communication overall (OR=0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.98) and in managing uncertainty (OR=0.74, 95% CI 0.55-0.99).
03Having a usual source of care and not having depression or anxiety symptoms were associated with higher odds of optimal patient-centered communication overall and in most domains.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The data are self-reported survey responses, so patients may interpret questions about time and understanding differently. The overall survey response rate was 33%, so some cancer survivors may differ from those who responded. The study is cross-sectional, so it cannot show that the pandemic caused changes in communication or that one factor led to another. The pandemic data were collected from February to June 2020, so they may not apply to later or post-COVID-19 periods. The number analysed for overall continuous communication was 2,244, and the study also reports 2,579 cancer survivors; missing covariate values ranged from 1.0% to 13.3%. Optimal communication required 'always' for all domains, a stringent cut-off; using 'always or usually' changed the gender association.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. NIH and UC Davis funds supported some authors' time, but the funding sources had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, or submission.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the adjusted lower odds as proof that the pandemic caused worse communication. The direct prevalence comparison was not significant, and the study is cross-sectional, so it cannot establish cause.