3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Sensitivity of Psychosocial Distress Screening to Identify Cancer Patients at Risk for Financial Hardship During Care Delivery

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          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

          PURPOSE:

          Patients with cancer frequently encounter financial hardship, yet systematic strategies to identify at-risk patients are not established in care delivery. We assessed sensitivity of distress-based screening to identify patients with cancer-related financial hardship and associated care delivery outcomes.

          METHODS:

          A survey of 225 patients at a large cancer center assessed cancer-related financial hardship (0-10 Likert scale; highest quintile scores ≥ 5 defined severe hardship). Responses were linked to electronic medical records identifying patients’ distress screening scores 6 months presurvey (0-10 scale) and outcomes of missed cancer care visits and bad debt charges (unrecovered patient charges) within 6 months postsurvey. A positive screen for distress was defined as score ≥ 4. We analyzed screening test characteristics for identifying severe financial hardship within 6 months and associations between financial hardship and outcomes using logistic models.

          RESULTS:

          Although patients with positive distress screens were more likely to report financial hardship (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 1.08-1.37; P < .001), a positive distress screen was only 48% sensitive and 70% specific for identifying severe financial hardship. Patients with worse financial hardship scores were more likely to miss oncology care visits within 6 months (for every additional point in financial hardship score from 0 to 10, OR, 1.28; 1.12-1.47; P < .001). Of patients with severe hardship, 72% missed oncology visits versus 35% without severe hardship ( P = .006). Patients with worse hardship were more likely to incur any bad debt charges within 6 months (OR, 1.32; 1.13-1.54; P < .001).

          CONCLUSION:

          Systematic financial hardship screening is needed to help mitigate adverse care delivery outcomes. Existing distress-based screening lacks sensitivity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

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

          Overall Survival Results of a Trial Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Treatment.

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

            The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: Understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment.

            "Financial toxicity" has now become a familiar term used in the discussion of cancer drugs, and it is gaining traction in the literature given the high price of newer classes of therapies. However, as a phenomenon in the contemporary treatment and care of people with cancer, financial toxicity is not fully understood, with the discussion on mitigation mainly geared toward interventions at the health system level. Although important, health policy prescriptions take time before their intended results manifest, if they are implemented at all. They require corresponding strategies at the individual patient level. In this review, the authors discuss the nature of financial toxicity, defined as the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress of patients with cancer, as a result of treatments using innovative drugs and concomitant health services. They discuss coping with financial toxicity by patients and how maladaptive coping leads to poor health and nonhealth outcomes. They cover management strategies for oncologists, including having the difficult and urgent conversation about the cost and value of cancer treatment, availability of and access to resources, and assessment of financial toxicity as part of supportive care in the provision of comprehensive cancer care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:153-165. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Measuring financial toxicity as a clinically relevant patient‐reported outcome: The validation of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST)

              BACKGROUND Cancer and its treatment lead to increased financial distress for patients. To the authors' knowledge, to date, no standardized patient‐reported outcome measure has been validated to assess this distress. METHODS Patients with AJCC Stage IV solid tumors receiving chemotherapy for at least 2 months were recruited. Financial toxicity was measured by the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) measure. The authors collected data regarding patient characteristics, clinical trial participation, health care use, willingness to discuss costs, psychological distress (Brief Profile of Mood States [POMS]), and health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General (FACT‐G) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL questionnaires. Test‐retest reliability, internal consistency, and validity of the COST measure were assessed using standard‐scale construction techniques. Associations between the resulting factors and other variables were assessed using multivariable analyses. RESULTS A total of 375 patients with advanced cancer were approached, 233 of whom (62.1%) agreed to participate. The COST measure demonstrated high internal consistency and test‐retest reliability. Factor analyses revealed a coherent, single, latent variable (financial toxicity). COST values were found to be correlated with income (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.28; P<.001), psychosocial distress (r = ‐0.26; P<.001), and HRQOL, as measured by the FACT‐G (r = 0.42; P<.001) and by the EORTC QOL instruments (r = 0.33; P<.001). Independent factors found to be associated with financial toxicity were race (P = .04), employment status (P<.001), income (P = .003), number of inpatient admissions (P = .01), and psychological distress (P = .003). Willingness to discuss costs was not found to be associated with the degree of financial distress (P = .49). CONCLUSIONS The COST measure demonstrated reliability and validity in measuring financial toxicity. Its correlation with HRQOL indicates that financial toxicity is a clinically relevant patient‐centered outcome. Cancer 2017;123:476–484. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                JCO Oncology Practice
                JCO Oncology Practice
                American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
                2688-1527
                2688-1535
                December 2021
                December 2021
                : 17
                : 12
                : e1856-e1865
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
                [2 ]Departement of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX
                [3 ]Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
                [4 ]Graduate College of Social Work, University of Houston, Houston, TX
                [5 ]American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA
                [6 ]Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR
                [7 ]Department of Epidemiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
                [8 ]Department of Markets, Public Policy, and Law, Boston University School of Business, Boston, MA
                [9 ]Department of Breast Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
                [10 ]Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
                [11 ]Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
                [12 ]Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
                [13 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
                [14 ]Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
                Article
                10.1200/OP.20.01009
                34043452
                ab059081-7847-435e-9749-ddfe8f2250e3
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article