Factors for peripherally inserted central catheters care delay in cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly evolved into a global pandemic. The public health systems have consequently been placed under tremendous pressure. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are widely used in patients with cancers. Little is known about the provision of PICCs care amongst cancer patients during this pandemic. Methods: We studied 156 cancer patients with PICCs treated at the Cancer Center of the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University between January 2020 and March 2020. Their clinical characteristics, social features, psychological characteristics, and PICCs care situations were analyzed. The chi-squared (χ 2 )test or Fisher's exact test were used for univariate analyses. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed using stepwise variable selection. Differences were evaluated using a two-tailed test, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: Of 156 patients, 57 (36.5%) experienced delays of PICCs care, and 12 (21.1%) suffered from complications including infection, thrombosis, and mechanical failure. Univariate analysis detected that the increased risk of PICCs care delay was associated with older age (≥30), lower level of education (<9 years), working, taking public transport to the hospital, anxiety about COVID-19, lower social support rating scale (SSRS) score (<30). Multivariate analysis detected level of education, being employed or not, mode of transport, and SSRS score were independent predictive factors for the delay in PICCs care.Conclusions: Physical aspects, social factors, and psychological status commonly influenced patients' health care seeking behaviors such as PICCs maintenance. An increase in effort is required from patients' families and society to assure optimal care for cancer patients during this pandemic.

The prevalence of psychological disorders among cancer patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A meta‐analysis

“…A total of 27,590 cases were included, and the sample size of each study ranged from 14 to 6231 participants. As for risk of bias, 11, 24 , 27 , 29 , 31 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 47 , 50 , 56 14, 23 , 25 , 28 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 49 , 52 , 54 , 55 and 15 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 26 , 30 , 36 , 39 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 51 , 53 studies had high, unclear, and low risks, respectively (Table S6 ). Overall, the risk of bias for the included studies was relatively small, indicating moderate methodological quality.…”