Is There a Specific Profile of COVID-19 Risk Perception among People with Cancer?A Cross-Sectional Study

Aims:This study aimed to determine if people with cancer(PWC)exhibit a unique COVID-19 risk perception profile and identify psychosocial factors characterizing PWC who do not conform to the majority risk perception profile.Procedure:A cross-sectional online self-questionnaire study was conducted in France from April 25 to May 07,2020,with a sample(n=748)comprising PWC,individuals not currently receiving cancer treatment,and those without a history of cancer.Latent profiles of COVID-19 risk perception(PCRP)were established.Methods:A multivariate multinomial logistic regression was performed to assess the association between cancer status and PCRP membership.Characteristics of PWC across different profiles were compared.Results:Four profiles emerged,ranging from Low-Risk to High-Risk Perceivers.PWC were more likely to belong to the High-Risk Perceivers profile(aOR:3.02;p<0.001).PWC not conforming to this profile had a higher perceived socioeconomic level(PSL)(p<0.05).The majority of PWC demonstrated a specific COVID-19 risk perception profile,mainly influenced by medical knowledge linking cancer to increased COVID-19 severity.PSL was a key determinant in shaping risk perception among PWC.Conclusion:Interventions targeting COVID-19 risk perception modification should consider these factors,with particular emphasis on addressing concerns related to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Design and Production of a Patient Guide to Support Return to Work after Breast Cancer:An Application of Intervention Mapping

Aims.Return to work(RTW)after breast cancer is a complex process that questions the individual trajectories of patients and stakeholders.Program planning in this context requires relying on appropriate methods like Intervention Mapping(IM)which encompasses such complexity.The aim of the methodological study is to describe an application of IM for both the design and production of a patient guide supporting RTW after breast cancer.Procedure.According to IM,the guide was co-constructed with a Community Advisory Board(CAB)of stakeholders(patients/associations,health professionals,companies,institutions)after considering other options(interactive website,mobile application).The design was done with empirical and theoretical anchoring,guided here by an Ecosystem Process of Change model.A communication agency was chosen to produce the document.Pre-tests were conducted with a representative panel of the target audience to assess the different prototypes elaborated,using questionnaires and a focus group.Results.The final structure of the guide is presented with comments in order to concretely illustrate the management of IM steps 3 and 4.The final structure of the guide is presented,along with a description of its components that target women(according to Prochaska et Di Clemente’s stages of change)and their environment(by use of levers they may activate).The results of the pre-test led to the simplification of the guide and its structure.Conclusion.IM allows a rich integration of experiential knowledge in the planning of complex health and public health programs.The development of the guide has attempted to integrate its aspects,in particular to promote both its implementation and its effects.Reflections are brought about the realistic evaluation of such complex interventions.