Breast Cancer-Related Financial Toxicity in Sri Lanka: Insights From a Lower Middle-Income Country With Free Universal Public Healthcare.

Financial toxicity (FT) describes either objective or perceived excess financial strain due to a cancer diagnosis on the well-being of patients, families, and society. The consequences of FT have been shown to span countries of varied economic tiers and diverse healthcare models. This study attempts to describe FT and its effects in a lower- to middle-income country delivering predominantly public nonfee-levying healthcare. This was a cross-sectional study involving 210 patients with breast cancer of any stage (I to IV), interviewed between 6 and 18 months from the date of diagnosis. Financial toxicity was highly prevalent with 81% reporting 3 or more on a scale of 1 to 5. Costs incurred for travelling (94%), out-of-hospital investigations (87%), and consultation fees outside the public system (81%) were the most common contributors to FT. Daily compromises for food and education were made by 30% and 20%, respectively, with loss of work seen in over one-third. Greater FT was seen with advanced cancer stage and increasing distance to the nearest radiotherapy unit (P = .008 and .01, respectively). Family and relatives were the most common form of financial support (77.6%). In conclusion, FT is substantial in our group, with many having to make daily compromises for basic needs. Many opt to visit the fee-levying private sector for at least some part of their care, despite the availability of an established public nonfee-levying healthcare.

CritCom: assessment of quality of interdisciplinary communication around deterioration in pediatric oncologic patients.

Background: High-quality clinical care requires excellent interdisciplinary communication, especially during emergencies, and no tools exist to evaluate communication in critical care. We describe the development of a pragmatic tool focusing on interdisciplinary communication during patient deterioration (CritCom). Methods: The preliminary CritCom tool was developed after a literature review and consultation with a multidisciplinary panel of global experts in communication, pediatric oncology, and critical care to review the domains and establish content validity iteratively. Face and linguistic validity were established through cognitive interviews, translation, and linguistic synthesis. We conducted a pilot study among an international group of clinicians to establish reliability and usability. Results: After reviewing 105 potential survey items, we identified 52 items across seven domains. These were refined through cognitive interviews with 36 clinicians from 15 countries. CritCom was piloted with 433 clinicians (58% nurses, 36% physicians, and 6% other) from 42 hospitals in 22 countries. Psychometric testing guided the refinement of the items for the final tool. CritCom comprised six domains with five items each (30 total). The final tool has excellent reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.81-0.86), usability (93% agree or strongly agree that the tool is easy to use), and similar performance between English and Spanish tools. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to establish the final 6-domain structure. Conclusions: CritCom is a reliable and pragmatic bilingual tool to assess the quality of interdisciplinary communication around patient deterioration for children in diverse resource levels globally. Critcom results can be used to design and evaluate interventions to improve team communication.

A new measure for multi-professional medical team communication: design and methodology for multilingual measurement development.

Background: As implementation science in global health continues to evolve, there is a need for valid and reliable measures that consider diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. A standardized, reproducible process for multilingual measure development may improve accessibility and validity by participants in global health settings. To address this need, we propose a rigorous methodology for multilingual measurement development. We use the example of a novel measure of multi-professional team communication quality, a determinant of implementation efforts. Methods: The development and translation of this novel bilingual measure is comprised of seven steps. In this paper, we describe a measure developed in English and Spanish, however, this approach is not language specific. Participants are engaged throughout the process: first, an interprofessional panel of experts and second, through cognitive interviewing for measure refinement. The steps of measure development included: (1) literature review to identify previous measures of team communication; (2) development of an initial measure by the expert panel; (3) cognitive interviewing in a phased approach with the first language (English); (4): formal, forward-backward translation process with attention to colloquialisms and regional differences in languages; (5) cognitive interviewing repeated in the second language (Spanish); (6) language synthesis to refine both instruments and unify feedback; and (7) final review of the refined measure by the expert panel. Results: A draft measure to assess quality of multi-professional team communication was developed in Spanish and English, consisting of 52 questions in 7 domains. This measure is now ready for psychometric testing. Conclusions: This seven-step, rigorous process of multilingual measure development can be used in a variety of linguistic and resource settings. This method ensures development of valid and reliable tools to collect data from a wide range of participants, including those who have historically been excluded due to language barriers. Use of this method will increase both rigor and accessibility of measurement in implementation science and advance equity in research and practice.

Development and pilot testing of PROACTIVE: A pediatric onco-critical care capacity and quality assessment tool for resource-limited settings.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 90% children with cancer reside in low- and middle-income countries, which face multiple challenges delivering high-quality pediatric onco-critical care (POCC). We recently identified POCC quality and capacity indicators for PROACTIVE (PediatRic Oncology cApaCity assessment Tool for IntensiVe carE), a tool that evaluates strengths and limitations in POCC services. This study describes pilot testing of PROACTIVE, development of center-specific reports, and identification of common POCC challenges. METHODS: The original 119 consensus-derived PROACTIVE indicators were converted into 182 questions divided between 2 electronic surveys for intensivists and oncologists managing critically ill pediatric cancer patients. Alpha-testing was conducted to confirm face-validity with four pediatric intensivists. Eleven centers representing diverse geographic regions, income levels, and POCC services conducted beta-testing to evaluate usability, feasibility, and applicability of PROACTIVE. Centers' responses were scored and indicators with mean scores ≤75% in availability/performance were classified as common POCC challenges. RESULTS: Alpha-testing ensured face-validity and beta-testing demonstrated feasibility and usability of PROACTIVE (October 2020-June 2021). Twenty-two surveys (response rate 99.4%) were used to develop center-specific reports. Adjustments to PROACTIVE were made based on focus group feedback and surveys, resulting in 200 questions. Aggregated data across centers identified common POCC challenges: (1) lack of pediatric intensivists, (2) absence of abstinence and withdrawal symptoms monitoring, (3) shortage of supportive care resources, and (4) limited POCC training for physicians and nurses. CONCLUSIONS: PROACTIVE is a feasible and contextually appropriate tool to help clinicians and organizations identify challenges in POCC services across a wide range of resource-levels. Widespread use of PROACTIVE can help prioritize and develop tailored interventions to strengthen POCC services and outcomes globally.