Background We aimed to create a questionnaire to assess the health-related quality of life including functioning, symptoms, and general health status of adult patients with current or previous COVID-19. Here, we report on Phase I and II of the development. Methods Internationally recognized methodology for questionnaire development was followed. In Phase I, a comprehensive literature review was performed to identify relevant COVID-19 issues. Decisions for inclusion, exclusion, and data extraction were completed independently in teams of two and then compared. The resulting issues were discussed with health care professionals (HCPs) and current and former COVID-19 patients. The input of HCPs and patients was carefully considered, and the list of issues updated. In Phase II, this updated list was operationalized into items/questions. Results The literature review yielded 3342 publications, 339 of which were selected for full-text review, and 75 issues were identified. Discussions with 44 HCPs from seven countries and 52 patients from six countries showed that psychological symptoms, worries, and reduced functioning lasted the longest for patients, and there were considerable discrepancies between HCPs and patients concerning the importance of some of the symptoms. The final list included 73 issues, which were operationalized into an 80-item questionnaire. Conclusion The resulting COVID-19 questionnaire covers health–related quality of life issues relevant to COVID-19 patients and is available in several languages. The next steps include testing of the applicability and patients’ acceptability of the questionnaire (Phase IIIA) and preliminary psychometric testing (Phase IIIB).

Aims: Social inequality in access to mental health care is a current concern across the world. The authors determined whether differences in waiting times for outpatient psychotherapy changed after a statutory reform of the German psychotherapy law. Methods:The dates of first contact, first visit and treatment start, along with sociodemographic and clinical data, were extracted from patient records in communitybased psychotherapy practices. Predictors of waiting times for first visit and treatment start were investigated using multilevel Cox regression models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR adj ).Results: Data from 1548 patient records from nine practices were extracted. Before the reform, the time span between first contact and first visit was longer for patients with compulsory education than for patients with a college degree (HR adj 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.0), whereas this was no longer the case after the law changed (HR adj 1.0, 95% CI 0.8-1.3). Patients whose treatment was covered by the state were at higher risk of a long waiting time from last visit to treatment start compared with patients with statutory health insurance after the law changed (HR adj 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.7), which had not been the case before the law changed (HR adj 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.2).Conclusions: Social inequality in access to psychotherapy was reduced in part by the updated psychotherapy law in terms of educational groups; however, it increased in other aspects. This shows how political decisions can powerfully impact clinical practice, ultimately helping one group of patients while disadvantaging another.

The long-term problems of head and neck cancer survivors (HNCS) are not well known. In a cross-sectional international study aimed at exploring the long-term quality of life in this population, 1114 HNCS were asked to state their two most serious long-term effects. A clinician recorded the responses during face-to-face appointments. A list of 15 example problems was provided, but a free text field was also available. A total of 1033 survivors responded to the question. The most frequent problems were ‘dry mouth’ (DM) (n = 476; 46%), ‘difficulty swallowing/eating’ (DSE) (n = 408; 40%), ‘hoarseness/difficulty speaking’ (HDS) (n = 169; 16%), and ‘pain in the head and neck’ (PHN) (n = 142; 14%). A total of 5% reported no problems. Logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, treatment, and tumor stage and site showed increased odds of reporting DM and DSE for chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) alone compared to surgery alone (odds ratio (OR): 4.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.5–9.0; OR: 2.1, CI: 1.1–3.9), but decreased odds for HDS and PHN (OR: 0.3, CI: 0.1–0.6; OR: 0.2, CI: 0.1–0.5). Survivors with UICC stage IV at diagnosis compared to stage I had increased odds of reporting HDS (OR: 1.9, CI: 1.2–3.0). Laryngeal cancer survivors had reduced odds compared to oropharynx cancer survivors of reporting DM (OR: 0.4, CI: 0.3–0.6) but increased odds of HDS (OR: 7.2, CI: 4.3–12.3). This study provides evidence of the serious long-term problems among HNCS.

Purpose We aimed at exploring the quality of life (QOL) of lung cancer survivors with proven tyrosine-kinase receptor (RTK) genetic alterations and targeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI) therapy, compared to lung cancer survivors with no-RTK alterations and no-TKI therapy. Methods Data were collected in a cross-sectional multi-centre study. Primary lung cancer survivors were asked about their socio-demographic and clinical information, QOL, symptom burden, and distress. QOL and symptom burden were assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and distress with the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). Demographic and clinical characteristics were reported in absolute and relative frequencies, QOL, and symptom burden using mean scores. Differences in mean scores with relative 95% confidence intervals were used for comparison. Results Three groups of survivors were defined: group A with proven RTK alterations, TKI therapy at any time during therapy, and stage IV lung cancer at diagnosis (n = 49); group B: non-TKI therapy and stage IV lung cancer (n = 121); group C: non-TKI therapy and stage I–III lung cancer (n = 495). Survivors in group A reported lower QOL (mean score difference = -11.7 vs. group B) and symptom burden for dyspnoea (difference = -11.5 vs. group C), and higher symptom burden for appetite loss (difference =  + 11.4 vs. group C), diarrhoea and rash (differences =  + 25.6, + 19.6 and + 13.2, + 13.0, respectively, vs. both groups). Conclusions Our results suggest that the specific side effects of TKI therapy can impair QOL among lung cancer survivors. Therefore, specific focus towards the optimal management of these side effects should be considered.

No abstract