Screening for Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Nadia L Samaha, Leila J Mady, Maria Armache, Madison Hearn, Rachel Stemme, Reshma Jagsi, Laila A Gharzai
{"title":"Screening for Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Nadia L Samaha, Leila J Mady, Maria Armache, Madison Hearn, Rachel Stemme, Reshma Jagsi, Laila A Gharzai","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.04.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Despite the pervasiveness and adverse impacts of financial toxicity (FT) in cancer care, there are no definitive measures for FT screening that have been widely integrated into clinical practice. The aim of this review is to evaluate current methods of assessing FT among patients with cancer and confirm factors associated with higher risk of FT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We included peer-reviewed studies that cross-sectionally, longitudinally, or prospectively measured the self-reported financial impact of patients undergoing cancer care in the United States.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1,085 identified studies, 51 met final inclusion criteria. Outcomes evaluated included FT measures or tools, time and setting of screening, FT prevalence, and sociodemographic or clinical patient-level associated factors. Our findings demonstrate that there is wide variability in FT screening practices including in the timing (diagnosis versus treatment versus survivorship), setting (clinic-based, online, telephone or mail), tools used (21 unique tools, 7 previously validated), and interpretations of screening results (varying FT score cutoffs defining high versus low FT). Younger age, lower income, lower education, non-White race, employment status change, advanced cancer stage, and systemic or radiation therapy were among factors associated with worse FT across the studies.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>FT screening remains heterogenous within the United States. With the ever-escalating cost of cancer care, and the strong association between FT and poor patient outcomes, universal and routine FT screening is imperative in cancer care. Further research and multifaceted interventions identifying best practices for FT screening are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":73968,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2024.04.024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Despite the pervasiveness and adverse impacts of financial toxicity (FT) in cancer care, there are no definitive measures for FT screening that have been widely integrated into clinical practice. The aim of this review is to evaluate current methods of assessing FT among patients with cancer and confirm factors associated with higher risk of FT.

Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We included peer-reviewed studies that cross-sectionally, longitudinally, or prospectively measured the self-reported financial impact of patients undergoing cancer care in the United States.

Results: Out of 1,085 identified studies, 51 met final inclusion criteria. Outcomes evaluated included FT measures or tools, time and setting of screening, FT prevalence, and sociodemographic or clinical patient-level associated factors. Our findings demonstrate that there is wide variability in FT screening practices including in the timing (diagnosis versus treatment versus survivorship), setting (clinic-based, online, telephone or mail), tools used (21 unique tools, 7 previously validated), and interpretations of screening results (varying FT score cutoffs defining high versus low FT). Younger age, lower income, lower education, non-White race, employment status change, advanced cancer stage, and systemic or radiation therapy were among factors associated with worse FT across the studies.

Discussion: FT screening remains heterogenous within the United States. With the ever-escalating cost of cancer care, and the strong association between FT and poor patient outcomes, universal and routine FT screening is imperative in cancer care. Further research and multifaceted interventions identifying best practices for FT screening are needed.

癌症患者经济毒性筛查:系统回顾。
目的:尽管经济毒性(FT)在癌症治疗中普遍存在并产生了不良影响,但目前尚无明确的FT筛查措施被广泛纳入临床实践。本综述旨在评估目前评估癌症患者财务毒性的方法,并确认与较高财务毒性风险相关的因素:方法:根据 PRISMA 指南进行了系统性综述。我们纳入了同行评议的研究,这些研究对美国癌症患者自我报告的财务影响进行了横向、纵向或前瞻性测量:在 1085 项已确定的研究中,有 51 项符合最终纳入标准。评估的结果包括财务影响的测量方法/工具、筛查的时间和环境、财务影响的发生率以及社会人口学或临床患者层面的相关因素。我们的研究结果表明,FT 筛查方法存在很大差异,包括筛查时间(诊断 vs 治疗 vs 幸存者)、筛查环境(诊所、在线、电话/邮件)、筛查工具(21 种独特的工具,其中 7 种是以前验证过的)以及筛查结果的解释(定义高 FT 和低 FT 的 FT 分界线各不相同)。在所有研究中,年龄较小、收入较低、受教育程度较低、非白人种族、就业状况变化、癌症晚期以及系统/放射治疗等因素都与FT较差有关:讨论:FT 筛查在美国仍存在差异。随着癌症治疗费用的不断攀升,以及FT与患者不良预后之间的密切联系,在癌症治疗中普及常规FT筛查势在必行。我们需要进一步开展研究,并采取多方面的干预措施,以确定进行前列腺癌筛查的最佳方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信