ObjectivesTo understand the impact of COVID-19 and public health measures on different social groups, we conducted a mixed-methods study in five countries (‘SEBCOV—social, ethical and behavioural aspects of COVID-19’). Here, we report the results of the online survey.Study design and statistical analysisOverall, 5058 respondents from Thailand, Malaysia, the UK, Italy and Slovenia completed the self-administered survey between May and June 2020. Poststratification weighting was applied, and associations between categorical variables assessed. Frequency counts and percentages were used to summarise categorical data. Associations between categorical variables were assessed using Pearson’s χ2 test. Data were analysed in Stata 15.0ResultsAmong the five countries, Thai respondents reported having been most, and Slovenian respondents least, affected economically. The following factors were associated with greater negative economic impacts: being 18–24 years or 65 years or older; lower education levels; larger households; having children under 18 in the household and and having flexible/no income. Regarding social impact, respondents expressed most concern about their social life, physical health, mental health and well-being.There were large differences between countries in terms of voluntary behavioural change, and in compliance and agreement with COVID-19 restrictions. Overall, self-reported compliance was higher among respondents who self-reported a high understanding of COVID-19. UK respondents felt able to cope the longest and Thai respondents the shortest with only going out for essential needs or work. Many respondents reported seeing news perceived to be fake, the proportion varying between countries, with education level and self-reported levels of understanding of COVID-19.ConclusionsOur data showed that COVID-19 and public health measures have uneven economic and social impacts on people from different countries and social groups. Understanding the factors associated with these impacts can help to inform future public health interventions and mitigate their negative consequences.Trial registration numberTCTR20200401002.

Purpose We aimed to assess patients’ and physicians’ perspectives on wider implementation of telemedicine in radiation oncology practice, disrupted by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Quantitative questionnaires were prepared and distributed between May 27 and June 11, 2020. A 29-question survey targeting patients with cancer was distributed electronically via cancer support organizations. Cross-sectional data from a selected weekday at a radiation oncology department were also analyzed. In addition, a 25-question survey was distributed to 168 physicians employed by a comprehensive cancer center. Results In total, we have analyzed 468 patients’ and 101 physicians’ responses. Among responding patients, 310 were undergoing active treatment and 158 were in follow-up care. Both patients and physicians reported no experiences with video consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic, but 15% of patients stated that they missed telemedicine services that would include a video call. Overall, 30.6% of patients expressed interest in more frequent usage of telemedicine and 23.3% would start using it. Sixty-seven percent of radiation oncologists expressed interest in more frequent usage of telemedicine, and 14% would use it similarly as in the past. For patients treated with radiation therapy (RT), 59.9% and 63.4% of the responding patients acknowledged that video consultations would be an important addition to medical care during RT course or after the completion of RT, respectively. Comparably, 61.1% and 63.9% of radiation oncologists believed video consultations would be useful or extremely useful for patients undergoing RT or for patients in the follow-up setting, respectively. Conclusions The post–COVID-19 era represents a unique chance to improve and guarantee continuity of cancer care via telemedicine solutions, when appropriate.

BackgroundAdvances in intensive care medicine have enormously improved ability to successfully treat seriously ill patients. However, intensive treatment and prolongation of life is not always in the patient’s best interest, and many ethical dilemmas arise in end-of-life (EOL) situations. We aimed to assess intensive care unit (ICU) physicians’ experiences with EOL decision making and to compare the responses according to ICU type.Material/MethodsA cross-sectional survey was performed in all 35 Slovene ICUs, using a questionnaire designed to assess ICU physician experiences with EOL decision making, focusing on limitations of life-sustaining treatments (LST).ResultsWe distributed 370 questionnaires (approximating the number of Slovene ICU physicians) and 267 were returned (72% response rate). The great majority of ICU physicians reported using do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders (97%), withholding LST (94%), and withdrawing antibiotics (86%) or inotropes (95%). Fewer ICU physicians reported withdrawing mechanical ventilation (52%) or extubating patients (27%). Hydration was reported to be only rarely terminated (76% of participants reported never terminating it). In addition, 63% of participants had never encountered advance directives, and 39% reported to “never” or “rarely” participating in decision making with relatives of patients. Nurses were reported to be “never” or “rarely” involved in the EOL decision making process by 84% of participants.ConclusionsLimitation of LST was regularly used by Slovene ICU physicians. DNR orders and withholding of LST were the most commonly used measures. Hydration was only rarely terminated. In addition, use of advance directives was almost non-existent in practice, and the patients’ relatives and nurses only infrequently participated in the decision making.