Purpose: The main purpose of the present study was to evaluate if there is a difference between objective or subjective administration of the MSTS score in a cohort of patients affected by musculoskeletal oncological diseases. Materials and methods: All patients who underwent surgery for bone or soft tissue localization of neoplastic disease in lower or upper limb from June 2015 to June 2020 were considered eligible. In order to administer the score as a PROM, the MSTS was first translated and cross-culturally adapted in Italian. During follow up visits, all patients filled out Italian versions of SF36, TESS and MSTS. Psychometric properties of the Italian version of MSTS were analyzed. Correlation between objective and self-administered MSTS score was assessed through Pearson’s coefficient. Results: A finale sample of 110 patients were included: 59 affected by lower extremity involvement and 51 affected by upper extremity involvement. The Italian version of the MSTS score showed good psychometric properties for both lower and upper extremity. The correlation between self-administered and hetero-administered version of the questionnaire was as high as r = 0.97 for lower extremities and r = 0.96 for upper extremities. Conclusions: The Italian version of the MSTS is a valid tool to evaluate outcomes of surgical treatment of patients affected by extremities tumors and it can be used as a subjective tool for both lower and upper extremity.

During the last year, the COVID-19 outbreak put all the healthcare workers around the world at risk of physical and psychological sequelae. The general purpose of the present study was to assess the mental health of Italian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 outbreak and to identify high-risk groups. Here, we present results from the baseline assessment of the “Healthcare workers’ wellbeing (Benessere Operatori)” project on a sample of 1055 healthcare workers. Participants completed the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21, the Insomnia Severity Index, the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2, and the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Healthcare workers who worked in COVID wards reported higher levels of anxiety, insomnia, post-traumatic stress, anger, and burnout, compared to those reported by the healthcare workers who worked in non-COVID wards. Moreover, nurses, both in COVID and non-COVID wards, were at higher risk of experiencing psychological distress compared to other groups of healthcare workers. These findings highlight the importance of implementing targeted psychological interventions for healthcare workers operating in COVID wards and nurses, who seem to be the most vulnerable categories.

Background: COVID-19 forced healthcare workers to work in unprecedented and critical circumstances, exacerbating already-problematic and stressful working conditions. The “Healthcare workers’ wellbeing (Benessere Operatori)” project aimed at identifying psychological and personal factors, influencing individuals’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: 291 healthcare workers took part in the project by answering an online questionnaire twice (after the first wave of COVID-19 and during the second wave) and completing questions on socio-demographic and work-related information, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21, the Insomnia Severity Index, the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2, the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, and the Brief Cope. Results: Higher levels of worry, worse working conditions, a previous history of psychiatric illness, being a nurse, older age, and avoidant and emotion-focused coping strategies seem to be risk factors for healthcare workers’ mental health. High levels of perceived social support, the attendance of emergency training, and problem-focused coping strategies play a protective role. Conclusions: An innovative, and more flexible, data mining statistical approach (i.e., a regression trees approach for repeated measures data) allowed us to identify risk factors and derive classification rules that could be helpful to implement targeted interventions for healthcare workers.

Background: Despite advancements in cancer treatment, chemotherapy side effects significantly impact patients both physically and emotionally. While pharmacological treatments can mitigate these side effects, they may trigger additional side effects, exacerbating the overall discomfort experienced by patients; moreover, psychological factors influencing physical symptoms are beyond the reach of pharmacological interventions. Nonpharmacological interventions, however, offer the potential for complementary or alternative solutions. Objectives: This review aims to offer a comprehensive analysis of the literature on the effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in managing the physical side effects of chemotherapy. Methods: This review, based on a search of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases, identified 46 relevant studies. It categorizes interventions and evaluates their effectiveness in managing common chemotherapy side effects (fatigue, nausea, pain, diarrhea, and constipation). Results: Guided imagery, tailored exercises, and Qigong show promise in reducing fatigue, while interventions like yoga and cognitive-behavioral approaches address nausea and vomiting. Pain benefits result from guided imagery and educational interventions. Limited evidence exists for diarrhea and constipation interventions, necessitating further research. Conclusions: This review offers provisional conclusions, emphasizing the potential of integrating evidence-based nonpharmacological approaches alongside pharmacological interventions to enhance patient outcomes and reduce chemotherapy-induced side effects, considering factors such as accessibility, safety, customization, and adaptability in clinical settings.

Background: Cancer remains a leading cause of death, with 9.7 million deaths in 2022. Despite advancements in diagnosis and treatment, many cancer patients experience side effects that significantly impact their quality of life, including chronic pain, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and cancer-related fatigue. Non-pharmacological interventions, such as yoga, have gained attention for their potential to reduce stress and improve overall well-being. However, barriers such as fatigue, pain, and transportation issues limit access to in-person yoga, leading to the growing adoption of online yoga as a viable alternative. Objective: This systematic review synthesizes research on the effectiveness of online yoga for cancer patients. A comprehensive search was conducted across Medline, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases on 24 October 2024. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the CASP Checklist. Of 6266 articles initially identified, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising qualitative (n = 4) and quantitative (n = 10) studies. Results: The results suggest that online yoga can improve stress and sleep quality, with moderate effects on anxiety, depression, and fatigue. However, variability in study designs and methodological limitations complicate the evaluation of its overall effectiveness. Conclusions: Online yoga offers a practical, accessible option for cancer patients unable to attend in-person sessions, showing the potential to enhance mental and physical health outcomes. Nevertheless, the variability in study methodologies highlights the need for more standardized research to establish its role as a supportive intervention in oncology care.

Cancer patients are at an increased risk of developing severe consequences due to the COVID-19 infection. However, psychological outcomes in this population have been overlooked in the literature. The present study aims to identify significant psychological differences between gynecological cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy before and during the pandemic. Additionally, we explore the correlations between COVID-19-related concerns and anxiety, depression, distress, and quality of life levels. Forty-two patients completed the STAI-Y, the EORTC QLQ-C30, the BDI II, the DT, and an ad-hoc questionnaire that investigated COVID-19-related concerns. The analyses did not show significant differences in the psychometric scales between the two groups, highlighting a considerable resilience against mental health and quality of life deterioration during the COVID-19 pandemic in gynecologic cancer patients. However, COVID-19-related concerns were positively associated with anxiety and inversely related to emotional functioning levels. These results emphasize the importance of a comprehensive patient care and the need to implement a multidisciplinary approach that includes psychological support in the treatment plan. Moreover, it is essential to encourage clear communication to convey comprehensive information about the impact of the pandemic on physical and psychological levels, as well as to offer psychoeducational tools to face the pandemic.