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.
Reviewing Editor
- Eduardo L Franco, McGill University, Canada
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.
Version history
- Received: November 18, 2022
- Preprint posted: December 28, 2022 (view preprint)
- Accepted: August 8, 2023
- Accepted Manuscript published: August 10, 2023 (version 1)
- Version of Record published: August 24, 2023 (version 2)
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
-
- 203
- views
-
- 51
- downloads
-
- 0
- 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
We discuss 12 misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes concerning the use of covariates in observational or nonrandomized research. Additionally, we offer advice to help investigators, editors, reviewers, and readers make more informed decisions about conducting and interpreting research where the influence of covariates may be at issue. We primarily address misperceptions in the context of statistical management of the covariates through various forms of modeling, although we also emphasize design and model or variable selection. Other approaches to addressing the effects of covariates, including matching, have logical extensions from what we discuss here but are not dwelled upon heavily. The misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes we discuss include accurate representation of covariates, effects of measurement error, overreliance on covariate categorization, underestimation of power loss when controlling for covariates, misinterpretation of significance in statistical models, and misconceptions about confounding variables, selecting on a collider, and p value interpretations in covariate-inclusive analyses. This condensed overview serves to correct common errors and improve research quality in general and in nutrition research specifically.
-
- Ecology
- Epidemiology and Global Health
Zoonotic disease dynamics in wildlife hosts are rarely quantified at macroecological scales due to the lack of systematic surveys. Non-human primates (NHPs) host Plasmodium knowlesi, a zoonotic malaria of public health concern and the main barrier to malaria elimination in Southeast Asia. Understanding of regional P. knowlesi infection dynamics in wildlife is limited. Here, we systematically assemble reports of NHP P. knowlesi and investigate geographic determinants of prevalence in reservoir species. Meta-analysis of 6322 NHPs from 148 sites reveals that prevalence is heterogeneous across Southeast Asia, with low overall prevalence and high estimates for Malaysian Borneo. We find that regions exhibiting higher prevalence in NHPs overlap with human infection hotspots. In wildlife and humans, parasite transmission is linked to land conversion and fragmentation. By assembling remote sensing data and fitting statistical models to prevalence at multiple spatial scales, we identify novel relationships between P. knowlesi in NHPs and forest fragmentation. This suggests that higher prevalence may be contingent on habitat complexity, which would begin to explain observed geographic variation in parasite burden. These findings address critical gaps in understanding regional P. knowlesi epidemiology and indicate that prevalence in simian reservoirs may be a key spatial driver of human spillover risk.
