13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-zoi220621-1"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d549814e435">Question</h5> <p id="d549814e437">Did racial and ethnic minority adults with cancer in the United States experience more cancer care delays and adverse social and economic effects than White adults during the COVID-19 pandemic? </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-zoi220621-2"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d549814e440">Findings</h5> <p id="d549814e442">In this survey study of 1240 US adults with cancer, Black and Latinx adults reported experiencing higher rates of delayed cancer care and more adverse social and economic effects than White adults. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-zoi220621-3"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d549814e445">Meaning</h5> <p id="d549814e447">This study suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with disparities in the receipt of timely cancer care among Black and Latinx adults. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-zoi220621-4"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d549814e451">Importance</h5> <p id="d549814e453">The full effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care disparities, particularly by race and ethnicity, remains unknown. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-zoi220621-5"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d549814e456">Objectives</h5> <p id="d549814e458">To assess whether the race and ethnicity of patients with cancer was associated with disparities in cancer treatment delays, adverse social and economic effects, and concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate trusted sources of COVID-19 information by race and ethnicity. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-zoi220621-6"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d549814e461">Design, Setting, and Participants</h5> <p id="d549814e463">This national survey study of US adults with cancer compared treatment delays, adverse social and economic effects, concerns, and trusted sources of COVID-19 information by race and ethnicity from September 1, 2020, to January 12, 2021. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-zoi220621-7"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d549814e466">Exposures</h5> <p id="d549814e468">The COVID-19 pandemic.</p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-zoi220621-8"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d549814e471">Main Outcomes and Measures</h5> <p id="d549814e473">The primary outcome was delay in cancer treatment by race and ethnicity. Secondary outcomes were duration of delay, adverse social and economic effects, concerns, and trusted sources of COVID-19 information. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-zoi220621-9"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d549814e476">Results</h5> <p id="d549814e478">Of 1639 invited respondents, 1240 participated (75.7% response rate) from 50 US states, the District of Columbia, and 5 US territories (744 female respondents [60.0%]; median age, 60 years [range, 24-92 years]; 266 African American or Black [hereafter referred to as <i>Black</i>] respondents [21.5%]; 186 Asian respondents [15.0%]; 232 Hispanic or Latinx [hereafter referred to as <i>Latinx</i>] respondents [18.7%]; 29 American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or multiple races [hereafter referred to as <i>other</i>] respondents [2.3%]; and 527 White respondents [42.5%]). Compared with White respondents, Black respondents (odds ratio [OR], 6.13 [95% CI, 3.50-10.74]) and Latinx respondents (OR, 2.77 [95% CI, 1.49-5.14]) had greater odds of involuntary treatment delays, and Black respondents had greater odds of treatment delays greater than 4 weeks (OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 1.11-8.81]). Compared with White respondents, Black respondents (OR, 4.32 [95% CI, 2.65-7.04]) and Latinx respondents (OR, 6.13 [95% CI, 3.57-10.53]) had greater odds of food insecurity and concerns regarding food security (Black respondents: OR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.34-3.04]; Latinx respondents: OR, 2.94 [95% CI, [1.86-4.66]), financial stability (Black respondents: OR, 3.56 [95% CI, 1.79-7.08]; Latinx respondents: OR, 4.29 [95% CI, 1.98-9.29]), and affordability of cancer treatment (Black respondents: OR, 4.27 [95% CI, 2.20-8.28]; Latinx respondents: OR, 2.81 [95% CI, 1.48-5.36]). Trusted sources of COVID-19 information varied significantly by race and ethnicity. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-zoi220621-10"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d549814e490">Conclusions and Relevance</h5> <p id="d549814e492">In this survey of US adults with cancer, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with treatment delay disparities and adverse social and economic effects among Black and Latinx adults. Partnering with trusted sources may be an opportunity to overcome such disparities. </p> </div><p class="first" id="d549814e495">This survey study assesses whether the race and ethnicity of patients with cancer was associated with disparities in cancer treatment delays and adverse social and economic effects during the COVID-19 pandemic. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions

          The Lancet, 389(10077), 1453-1463
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls

            Most studies have some missing data. Jonathan Sterne and colleagues describe the appropriate use and reporting of the multiple imputation approach to dealing with them
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: a national, population-based, modelling study

              Summary Background Since a national lockdown was introduced across the UK in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention. In this study, we estimated the impact of delays in diagnosis on cancer survival outcomes in four major tumour types. Methods In this national population-based modelling study, we used linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15–84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2010, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2012, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2015. We use a routes-to-diagnosis framework to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays over a 12-month period from the commencement of physical distancing measures, on March 16, 2020, up to 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis. To model the subsequent impact of diagnostic delays on survival, we reallocated patients who were on screening and routine referral pathways to urgent and emergency pathways that are associated with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. We considered three reallocation scenarios representing the best to worst case scenarios and reflect actual changes in the diagnostic pathway being seen in the NHS, as of March 16, 2020, and estimated the impact on net survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis to calculate the additional deaths that can be attributed to cancer, and the total years of life lost (YLLs) compared with pre-pandemic data. Findings We collected data for 32 583 patients with breast cancer, 24 975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29 305 with lung cancer. Across the three different scenarios, compared with pre-pandemic figures, we estimate a 7·9–9·6% increase in the number of deaths due to breast cancer up to year 5 after diagnosis, corresponding to between 281 (95% CI 266–295) and 344 (329–358) additional deaths. For colorectal cancer, we estimate 1445 (1392–1591) to 1563 (1534–1592) additional deaths, a 15·3–16·6% increase; for lung cancer, 1235 (1220–1254) to 1372 (1343–1401) additional deaths, a 4·8–5·3% increase; and for oesophageal cancer, 330 (324–335) to 342 (336–348) additional deaths, 5·8–6·0% increase up to 5 years after diagnosis. For these four tumour types, these data correspond with 3291–3621 additional deaths across the scenarios within 5 years. The total additional YLLs across these cancers is estimated to be 59 204–63 229 years. Interpretation Substantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer. Funding UK Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Network Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                2574-3805
                July 01 2022
                July 14 2022
                : 5
                : 7
                : e2222009
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
                [2 ]Medical Services, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California
                [3 ]Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, California
                [4 ]Department of Psychology, Ponce Health Sciences University, Ponce Research Institute, Ponce, Puerto Rico
                [5 ]Battle Creek Veterans Affairs Medical Center–Clinical Neuropsychology Clinic, Battle Creek, Michigan
                [6 ]The Latino Cancer Institute, San Jose, California
                [7 ]Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
                [8 ]St Peter’s Health Partners Cancer Care, Albany, New York
                [9 ]Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
                Article
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.22009
                40cf330a-11b3-45ba-a5b0-f39a3cffc881
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article