Financial toxicity in patients with lung cancer: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer has the second-ranked morbidity rate and the first-ranked mortality rate worldwide. With the progression of the cancer condition and the advancement of new treatments, the corresponding medical expenses have risen sharply. Nowadays, financial toxicity has become one of the most common concerns in patients with cancer. However, by far, the full landscape of studies on financial toxicity is unclear in patients with lung cancer. Thus, this scoping review aims to summarise the degree, affecting factors, outcomes and intervention strategies of financial toxicity in patients with lung cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be developed following the methodology described in the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis on scoping review protocol, which was based on Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, Levac et al's recommendations for applying this framework and Peters et al's enhancements of the framework. From the day of database building to 31 December 2021, 10 English databases will be searched in the 'Abstract' field with three key search terms: "Lung", "Cancer" and "Financial toxicity". The studies' screening and data extraction will be independently performed by two reviewers (MZ and RZ). Any disagreements between the two reviewers (MZ and RZ) will be resolved by consensus, and a third reviewer (BW) will be invited if necessary. The results will be analysed and presented using tables and figures. This scoping review will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: An ethical approval is not required for this scoping review protocol, nor for the scoping review. The results of this scoping review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal or presentation at conferences. REGISTRATION: This scoping review protocol has been registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ub45n/?view_only=bb93eb94e1434a0f8196b3b61cffcec2).

Quality of life assessment instruments in adult patients receiving home parenteral and enteral nutrition: A scoping review.

Quality of life (QoL) assessment is important to evaluate the effect of the intervention for patients treated with home parenteral and enteral nutrition (HPEN). The purpose of this scoping review is to describe, evaluate, and recommend QoL instruments used in adult patients receiving HPEN. We used the Arksey and O'Malley framework and performed literature searches in five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) to identify possibly relevant articles that focused on QoL of adult patients receiving HPEN. Of the studies that qualify for full-text screening, two independent researchers extracted data. Twenty-seven QoL instruments were identified, consisting of seven generic instruments, 12 disease-specific instruments, and eight therapy-specific instruments. The Short Form-36 was the most widely used generic instrument and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 was the most commonly employed disease-specific instrument. The recently developed therapy-specific tools, NutriQoL and HPN-QoL, were increasingly employed in studies either alone or in combination with other types of instruments. Important aspects of each instrument were summarized to aid clinicians and researchers in selecting an appropriate instrument when measuring the QoL of adult HPEN patients. Findings could also help to identify the necessity to develop new tools or to modify pre-existing ones to measure QoL of HPEN patients.

Self-efficacy difference among patients with cancer with different socioeconomic status: application of latent class analysis and standardization and decomposition analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Although the relationship between partial socioeconomic status (SES) and self-efficacy has been studied in previous studies, few research have examined self-efficacy difference among patients with cancer with different SES. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey involving 764 patients with cancer was completed. Latent class analysis (LCA) was applied to identify distinct groups of patients with cancer using four SES indicators (education, income, employment status and health insurance status). Standardization and decomposition analysis (SDA) was then used to examine differences in patients' self-efficacy among SES groups and the components of the differences attributed to confounding factors, such as gender, age, anxiety, depression and social support. RESULTS: Participants were classified into four distinctive SES groups via using LCA method, and the observed self-efficacy level significantly varied by SES groups; as theorized, higher self-efficacy was associated with higher SES. The self-efficacy differences by SES groups were decomposed into "real" group differences and factor component effects that are attributed to group differences in confounding factor compositions. CONCLUSION: Self-efficacy significantly varies by SES. Social support significantly confounded the observed differences in self-efficacy between different SES groups among Chinese patients with cancer.