Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic has affected psychological wellbeing in many aspects, but its influence on cancer patients it not yet clear, and studies show mixed results.
Aims We aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on psychological symptom burden against the socio-economic background of cancer patients using data from routine assessments before and during the pandemic.
Methods Standardised assessment instruments were applied in N = 1,329 patients to screen for symptoms of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, and fatigue from 2018 to 2022. Two MANOVAs with separate ANOVAs and Bonferroni pairwise comparisons as post-hoc tests were computed. First, only time was included as predictor to examine the isolated impact of the pandemic. Second, income level and education level were included as further predictors to additionally test the predictive power of socioeconomic risk factors. All tests were two-sided.
Results Once indicators of socioeconomic status were included in the analysis, the seeming influence of the pandemic became negligible. Only income had a significant impact on all aspects of psychological symptom burden, with patients with low income being highly burdened (partial η2 = .01, p = .023). The highest mean difference was found for depressive symptoms (MD = 0.13, CI = [0.07; 0.19], p < .001). The pandemic had no further influence on psychological distress.
Conclusions Although the pandemic is a major stressor in many respects, poverty is by far the most important risk factor for psychological symptom burden in cancer outpatients and outweighs the impact of the pandemic.
Competing Interest Statement
RB: Consulting fees: Astra-Zeneca, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, Gruenenthal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Puma, Roche, Seagen. Lecture Honoraria: Astra-Zeneca, Daichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, Gruenenthal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Seagen. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: AstraZeneca, Daiichi, MSD, Roche. PV: Consulting fees: Novartis, Blueprint, BMS/Celgene, Pfizer, Cogent, and AOP Orphan. All other authors have nothing to disclose.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, gave ethical approval for this work (EC Nr: 2255/2016; 1241/2021).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data underlying this article are available online at the Open Science Framework (OSF).
