Understanding disruptions in cancer care to reduce increased cancer burden
- Washington University in St. Louis, United States
Abstract
Background: This study seeks to understand how and for whom COVID-19 disrupted cancer care to understand the potential for cancer health disparities across the cancer prevention and control continuum.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, participants age 30+ residing in an 82-county region in Missouri and Illinois completed an online survey from June-August 2020. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables separately and by care disruption status. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to determine the correlates of care disruption.
Results: Participants (N=680) reported 21% to 57% of cancer screening or treatment appointments were canceled/postponed from March 2020 through the end of 2020. Approximately 34% of residents stated they would need to know if their doctor's office is taking the appropriate COVID-related safety precautions to return to care. Higher education (OR=1.26, 95%CI:1.11- 1.43), identifying as female (OR=1.60, 95%CI:1.12-2.30), experiencing more discrimination in healthcare settings (OR=1.40, 95%CI:1.13-1.72), and having scheduled a telehealth appointment (OR=1.51, 95%CI:1.07-2.15) were associated with higher odds of care disruption. Factors associated with care disruption were not consistent across races. Higher odds of care disruption for White residents were associated with higher education, female identity, older age, and having scheduled a telehealth appointment, while higher odds of care disruption for Black residents were associated only with higher education.
Conclusions: This study provides an understanding of the factors associated with cancer care disruption and what patients need to return to care. Results may inform outreach and engagement strategies to reduce delayed cancer screenings and encourage returning to cancer care.
Funding Support: This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute's Administrative Supplements for P30 Cancer Center Support Grants (P30CA091842-18S2 and P30CA091842-19S4). Kia L. Davis, Lisa Klesges, Sarah Humble, and Bettina Drake were supported by the National Cancer Institute's P50CA244431 and Kia L. Davis was also supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Callie Walsh-Bailey was supported by NIMHD T37 MD014218. The content does not necessarily represent the official view of these funding agencies and is solely the responsibility of the authors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available on Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/p5x3s/. Please cite as data from this publication if used.
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
National Cancer Institute (P50CA244431)
- Kia L Davis
- Lisa M Klesges
- Sarah Humble
- Bettina Drake
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (T37 MD014218)
- Callie Walsh-Bailey
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Ethics
Human subjects: The Washington University in St. Louis, MO Institutional Review Board approved and exempted this study (ID#202006089). Informed consent was obtained before the survey was administered. All participants received an agreed-upon incentive from Qualtrics.
Copyright
© 2023, Davis et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 230
- views
-
- 52
- downloads
-
- 1
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Understanding disruptions in cancer care to reduce increased cancer burden
eLife 12:e85024.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.85024
Further reading
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
- Evolutionary Biology
Several coronaviruses infect humans, with three, including the SARS-CoV2, causing diseases. While coronaviruses are especially prone to induce pandemics, we know little about their evolutionary history, host-to-host transmissions, and biogeography. One of the difficulties lies in dating the origination of the family, a particularly challenging task for RNA viruses in general. Previous cophylogenetic tests of virus-host associations, including in the Coronaviridae family, have suggested a virus-host codiversification history stretching many millions of years. Here, we establish a framework for robustly testing scenarios of ancient origination and codiversification versus recent origination and diversification by host switches. Applied to coronaviruses and their mammalian hosts, our results support a scenario of recent origination of coronaviruses in bats and diversification by host switches, with preferential host switches within mammalian orders. Hotspots of coronavirus diversity, concentrated in East Asia and Europe, are consistent with this scenario of relatively recent origination and localized host switches. Spillovers from bats to other species are rare, but have the highest probability to be towards humans than to any other mammal species, implicating humans as the evolutionary intermediate host. The high host-switching rates within orders, as well as between humans, domesticated mammals, and non-flying wild mammals, indicates the potential for rapid additional spreading of coronaviruses across the world. Our results suggest that the evolutionary history of extant mammalian coronaviruses is recent, and that cases of long-term virus–host codiversification have been largely over-estimated.
-
- Cancer Biology
- Epidemiology and Global Health
Cancer is considered a risk factor for COVID-19 mortality, yet several countries have reported that deaths with a primary code of cancer remained within historic levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we further elucidate the relationship between cancer mortality and COVID-19 on a population level in the US. We compared pandemic-related mortality patterns from underlying and multiple cause (MC) death data for six types of cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s. Any pandemic-related changes in coding practices should be eliminated by study of MC data. Nationally in 2020, MC cancer mortality rose by only 3% over a pre-pandemic baseline, corresponding to ~13,600 excess deaths. Mortality elevation was measurably higher for less deadly cancers (breast, colorectal, and hematological, 2–7%) than cancers with a poor survival rate (lung and pancreatic, 0–1%). In comparison, there was substantial elevation in MC deaths from diabetes (37%) and Alzheimer’s (19%). To understand these differences, we simulated the expected excess mortality for each condition using COVID-19 attack rates, life expectancy, population size, and mean age of individuals living with each condition. We find that the observed mortality differences are primarily explained by differences in life expectancy, with the risk of death from deadly cancers outcompeting the risk of death from COVID-19.
