PURPOSE The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a global impact, and Singapore has seen 33,000 confirmed cases. Patients with cancer, their caregivers, and health care workers (HCWs) need to balance the challenges associated with COVID-19 while ensuring that cancer care is not compromised. This study aimed to evaluate the psychological effect of COVID-19 on these groups and the prevalence of burnout among HCWs. METHODS A cross-sectional survey of patients, caregivers, and HCWs at the National Cancer Centre Singapore was performed over 17 days during the lockdown. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and Maslach Burnout Inventory were used to assess for anxiety and burnout, respectively. Self-reported fears related to COVID-19 were collected. RESULTS A total of 624 patients, 408 caregivers, and 421 HCWs participated in the study, with a response rate of 84%, 88%, and 92% respectively. Sixty-six percent of patients, 72.8% of caregivers, and 41.6% of HCWs reported a high level of fear from COVID-19. The top concern of patients was the wide community spread of COVID-19. Caregivers were primarily worried about patients dying alone. HCWs were most worried about the relatively mild symptoms of COVID-19. The prevalence of anxiety was 19.1%, 22.5%, and 14.0% for patients, caregivers, and HCWs, respectively. Patients who were nongraduates and married, and caregivers who were married were more anxious. The prevalence of burnout in HCWs was 43.5%, with more anxious and fearful HCWs reporting higher burnout rates. CONCLUSION Fears and anxiety related to COVID-19 are high. Burnout among HCWs is similar to rates reported prepandemic. An individualized approach to target the specific fears of each group will be crucial to maintain the well-being of these vulnerable groups and prevent burnout of HCWs.

ObjectivesHaving to access life-sustaining treatment during the emerging COVID-19 outbreak has placed patients with cancer at an especially vulnerable position notwithstanding their immunocompromised condition. The present study aimed to elucidate cancer patients’ and their caregivers’ experiences during this outbreak.DesignFace-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted.SettingA tertiary cancer care facility.Participants16 patients with cancer and 14 caregivers. Inclusions criteria were: (A) diagnosed with cancer, (B) receiving active treatment or follow-ups, (C) aged 21 years and above and (D) fluent in English or Mandarin.ResultsThematic analysis was conducted. Five themes were identified: heightened sense of threat, impact on healthcare experience, responsibility falls on oneself, striving for normalcy and sense of safety and trust. Heightened threat of COVID-19 was more pronounced in patients and linked to vulnerability and fear, uncertainty and actions of socially irresponsible others. Dominant in their healthcare experience was prioritising cancer and treatment amidst heightened threat and anticipatory worry about treatment disruptions. Both noted on the importance of taking responsibility for one’s health, with caregivers reporting a reinforced sense of duty towards patients. They strived to maintain normalcy by viewing COVID-19 as beyond personal control, downplaying and living life as usual. Their resolve was supported by a sense of safety from the actions of authorities, hospitals and trust towards healthcare providers.ConclusionsCancer intensifies threat and the emotional impact of COVID-19 and may trigger specific concerns related to treatment. Psychoeducation interventions led by healthcare providers over digital platforms could help address cancer-specific concerns and support patients and caregivers during the pandemic.

IntroductionInitiation onto haemodialysis is a critical transition that entails multiple psychosocial and behavioural demands that can compound mental health burden. Interventions guided by self-management and cognitive–behavioural therapy to improve distress have been variably effective yet are resource-intensive or delivered reactively. Interventions with a focus on positive affect for patients with end-stage kidney disease are lacking. This study will seek (1) to develop a positive life skills intervention (HED-Start) combining evidence and stakeholder/user involvement and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of HED-Start to facilitate positive life skills acquisition and improve symptoms of distress and adjustment in incident haemodialysis patients.Methods and analysisThis is a single/assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare HED-Start to usual care. In designing HED-Start, semistructured interviews, a codesign workshop and an internal pilot will be undertaken, followed by a two-arm parallel RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of HED-Start. A total of 148 incident HD patients will be randomised using a 1:2 ratio into usual care versus HED-Start to be delivered in groups by trained facilitators between January 2021 and September 2022. Anxiety and depression will be the primary outcomes; secondary outcomes will be positive and negative affect, quality of life, illness perceptions, self-efficacy, self-management skills, benefit finding and resilience. Assessments will be taken at 2 weeks prerandomisation (baseline) and 3 months postrandomisation (2 weeks post-HED-Start completion). Primary analyses will use an intention-to-treat approach and compare changes in outcomes from baseline to follow-up relative to the control group using mixed-effect models.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from Nanyang Technological University Institutional Review Board (IRB-2019-01-010). Written informed consent will be obtained before any research activities. Trial results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations and will inform revision(s) in renal health services to support the transition of new patients to haemodialysis.Trial registration numberNCT04774770.

Background. In advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), patients face complex decisions related to renal replacement modality that can cause decisional conflict and delay. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of severe decisional conflict across decision types and to identify the psychosocial and clinical factors associated with decisional conflict in this population.Design. Observational cross-sectional study.Methods. Patients with CKD in renal care were recruited. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), Functional, Communicative, and Critical Health Literacy (FCCHL), Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ), and the Kidney-disease Quality of Life (KDQOL) questionnaires were used. Clinical data were obtained from medical records. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of severe decisional conflict (DCS score ≥ 37.5).Results. Participants (N = 190; response rate = 56.7%; mean age = 62.8 AE 10.8) reported moderate levels of decisional conflict (29.7 AE 14.5). The overall prevalence of severe decisional conflict was 27.5% (n = 46) with no significant differences across decision types (dialysis, modality, access). Ethnicity (Chinese), marital status (married), BIPQ treatment control, coherence, KDQOL staff encouragement, and all health literacy domains, except functional health literacy, were significant predictors of decisional conflict in the unadjusted models. In the multivariable model, only the health literacy domains of FCCHL Communicative, and HLQ Active Engagement remained significant. Conclusion.Even after pre-dialysis education, many CKD patients in this study still report severe decisional conflict, with rates remaining substantial across decision junctures. The associations of decisional conflict and health literacy skills related to communication and engagement with healthcare providers indicate that more collaborative and patientcentric pre-dialysis programs may support patient activation and resolve decisional conflict.

No abstract