Quality of life in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic—A Danish cross-sectional study (COPICADS)
Open accessAbstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic is an international public health crisis. The risk of getting an infection with COVID-19 might impact the emotional well-being in patients with cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate quality of life (QoL) for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.Patients and methods A cross-sectional survey, including questions about demographics, concerns of COVID-19 impact on cancer treatment and outpatient clinic visits, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire was sent to patients with cancer at the Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark. The survey was open from 15th May to 29th May 2020, and 4.571 responded. Results were compared to the Danish ‘Barometer Study’ conducted by the Danish Cancer Society to elucidate experiences with the Danish healthcare system prior to COVID-19 pandemic.Results In total, 9% of patients with cancer had refrained from consulting a doctor or the hospital due to fear of COVID-19 infection, and 80% were concerned about contracting COVID-19 to some extent. Seventeen patients were tested positive for COVID-19. The mean global QoL and emotional functioning (EF) scores were 71.3 and 82.8, respectively. In comparison to the ‘Barometer Study’, no clinical significant differences in QoL and EF scores were observed. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that being ‘Concerned about contracting corona-virus’ was correlated with lower QoL and EF scores. Factors associated with being concerned of contracting COVID-19 were comorbid conditions, incurable cancer, receiving medical cancer treatment and female gender.Conclusion Danish patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic did not have lower scores of QoL and emotional functioning compared to the Danish ‘Barometer Study’. However, the study suggests that concerns of contracting COVID-19 was correlated with lower scores of QoL.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Three studies concluded that more than half of their participants expressed worry about being infected by the coronavirus and having a complicated course of COVID-19.
“Three studies concluded that more than half of their participants expressed worry about being infected by the coronavirus and having a complicated course of COVID-19 [21,22,24].”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
The Results report that 80% of this study’s patients with cancer were concerned about contracting COVID-19, supporting the more-than-half figure for this study. The paper discusses the risk of a serious course of COVID-19, but does not report that more than half of its participants worried about having one. It also cannot establish what the other two cited studies found. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHigher global quality of life, emotional function, and wellbeing was correlated with increasing age, specifically in patients aged > 60 years (p = 0.01).
“Higher global QoL, emotional function, and wellbeing was correlated with increasing age [22], specifically, in patients aged > 60 years (p = 0.01) [19,24].”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
The Results report that increasing age correlated with higher global QoL and emotional-functioning scores. This paper does not report a separate wellbeing outcome. In the printed sentence, the age-over-60 and p = 0.01 detail is attached to other citations, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPre- versus during COVID-19 pandemic comparisons by Jeppesen et al. and Koining et al. revealed that global quality of life and emotional functioning ascertained through EORTC QLQ-C30 were not significantly altered by the pandemic.
“Interestingly, pre- versus during COVID-19 pandemic comparisons conducted by Jeppesen et al. [22] and Koining et al. [23] revealed that the global QoL and emotional functioning ascertained through EORTC QLQ-C30 were not significantly altered by the pandemic, which can be considered clinically significant (MCID estimates of 5–14 points) [32].”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
The Results report that EORTC QLQ-C30 global quality-of-life and emotional-functioning scores during the pandemic showed no clinically significant differences from the pre-pandemic Barometer Study. However, the paper does not establish that the differences were statistically nonsignificant or that the pandemic caused no change; its limitations section notes that it lacked pre-pandemic baseline data for its participants. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBeing a woman (gender) was a risk factor for anxiety and distress induced by the pandemic (p < 0.03).
“Being a woman (gender) was a risk factor for anxiety and distress induced by the pandemic (p < 0.03) [20,22,23].”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
The Results report that male gender was associated with higher emotional-functioning scores, and Table 4 (Additional information; page unavailable) shows lower scores for women (p = .001). The paper also associates female gender with concern about contracting COVID-19. It does not establish that being a woman caused pandemic-induced anxiety and distress, or report p < .03 for that outcome. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPatients living alone (p < 0.05) fared poorer on psychosocial measures.
“Those with a cancer diagnosis of brain tumors, cervical cancers, and thoracic cancers (p-value < 0.05) [22]; those with several comorbidities [22]; patients receiving medical cancer treatment [21], especially those receiving oral treatment [25]; those living alone (p < 0.05), [22]; and those residing in city apartments (p = 0.01) [20] fared poorer on psychosocial measures [22].”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
The Results report that not living alone was associated with higher global quality-of-life scores. Table 4 shows this household difference was significant for global quality of life (p < .05), but not for emotional functioning (p = .29). The claim is supported for quality of life, not for psychosocial measures more broadly. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Older adults above the age of 65 had better quality of life scores and relatively fewer fears surrounding COVID-19 compared to their younger counterparts.
“Older adults above the age of 65 had better QoL scores and relatively fewer fears surrounding COVID-19 compared to their younger counterparts [20,22,23,26].”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
The Results and Table 4 (page not supplied) associate increasing age with higher quality-of-life scores among Danish patients with cancer, but the analysis uses age bands rather than an over-65 cutoff. The paper reports COVID-19 concerns and their association with lower quality of life, but the passages do not establish that older patients had fewer such concerns than younger patients. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured9% of patients refrained from consulting a doctor or visiting the hospital due to fear of contracting the virus.
“with 9% of patients refraining from consulting a doctor or visiting the hospital due to fear of contracting the virus [22].”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
Patients with a cancer diagnosis of brain tumors, cervical cancers, and thoracic cancers (p-value < 0.05) fared poorer on psychosocial measures.
“Those with a cancer diagnosis of brain tumors, cervical cancers, and thoracic cancers (p-value < 0.05) [22]; those with several comorbidities [22]; patients receiving medical cancer treatment [21], especially those receiving oral treatment [25]; those living alone (p < 0.05), [22]; and those residing in city apartments (p = 0.01) [20] fared poorer on psychosocial measures [22].”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
Jeppesen et al. suggested that employed patients had a higher global quality of life score.
“Jeppesen et al. [22] suggested that employed patients had a higher global Qol score, while Baffert et al. [20] found the same in retired individuals (p = 0.04).”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
Patients with several comorbidities fared poorer on psychosocial measures.
“Those with a cancer diagnosis of brain tumors, cervical cancers, and thoracic cancers (p-value < 0.05) [22]; those with several comorbidities [22]; patients receiving medical cancer treatment [21], especially those receiving oral treatment [25]; those living alone (p < 0.05), [22]; and those residing in city apartments (p = 0.01) [20] fared poorer on psychosocial measures [22].”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 16 · Cited by 61
- Authors
- Jeppesen, S. S., Bentsen, K. K., Jørgensen, T. L., Holm, H. S., Holst-Christensen, L., Tarpgaard, L. S., Dahlrot, R. H., & Eckhoff, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern Denmark (DK)
- Odense University Hospital (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Jeppesen, Stefan S.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Acta Oncologica
- Published
- 2020-10-08
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-12
- ISSN
- 0284-186X (ISSN-L)
- 1651-226X
- OpenAlex
- W3092615366
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 4.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Acta Oncologica (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
- Keywords
- quality of life, cancer patients, COVID-19 pandemic, fear of infection, emotional functioning, EORTC QLQ-C30, cancer therapy, outpatient visits, comorbidities, incurable cancer, gender differences, Danish health care system
- MeSH terms
- Social Interaction, Psychosocial Functioning, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition, Cross-Sectional Studies, Denmark, Employment, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Residence Characteristics, Role, Sex Factors, Comorbidity, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review