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.

Patient perspectives on primary care behavioral health integration in an urban mental health professional shortage area: Benefits, facilitators, and barriers.

INTRODUCTION: While studies have described the benefits of integrating behavioral health (BH) into primary care (PC), few have examined patients' perspectives, especially in large, urban health systems. In 2015, the University of Chicago Medicine launched the Primary Care Behavioral Health Integration Program, located in a mental health professional shortage area. METHOD: In 2021, semistructured interviews were conducted with adult patients who had discussed their depression symptoms with their primary care clinician (PCC). Participants were asked about their experiences of being screened for depression, discussing BH, and being referred to behavioral health clinicians (BHCs). Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and constant comparison, and they were conducted until theme saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Fifteen participants were interviewed, the majority of whom were women and African American/Black, with an average age of 52. Participants expressed that PC-BH integration helps patients recognize BH problems and navigate the BH care system, emphasizes the connection between physical and mental health, and eases conversations through familiar setting and established trust. Patients enumerated barriers to integration, including barriers to BH care in the PC setting, barriers to BH conversations with PCCs/BHCs, and barriers to referrals to psychiatry/external therapy. Patients highlighted facilitators of integration, including trust with their PCC, collaboration between PCCs and BHCs, and population-level screening. DISCUSSION: These perspectives affirm the core strength of PC-BH integration: making BH more accessible and destigmatizing, especially for underserved communities. They also emphasize the importance of collaboration between PCCs and BHCs, shared identities, and actively involving patients in program design and quality improvement interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Improving Primary Care Behavioral Health Integration in an Academic Internal Medicine Practice: 2-Year Follow-Up.

This report details ongoing efforts to improve integration in the 2 years following implementation of the Primary Care Behavioral Health model at a general internal medicine clinic of an urban academic medical center. Efforts were informed by a modified version of the validated Level of Integration Measure, sent to all faculty and staff annually. At baseline, results indicated that the domains of systems integration, training, and integrated clinical practices had the greatest need for improvement. Over the 2 years, the authors increased availability of behavioral medicine appointments, improved depression screening processes, offered behavioral health training for providers, disseminated clinical decision support tools, and provided updates about integration progress during clinic meetings. Follow-up survey results demonstrated that physicians and staff perceived improvements in integration overall and in targeted domains. However, the main ongoing barrier to integration was insufficient behavioral health staff to meet patient demand for behavioral health services.