RESUMEN
Background: Financial toxicity (FT) reflects multi-dimensional personal economic hardships borne by cancer patients. It is unknown whether measures of FT-to date derived largely from English-speakers-adequately capture economic experiences and financial hardships of medically underserved low English proficiency US Hispanic cancer patients. We piloted a Spanish language FT instrument in this population. Methods: We piloted a Spanish version of the Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh) FT measure using qualitative cognitive interviews and surveys in un-/under-insured or medically underserved, low English proficiency, Spanish-speaking Hispanics (UN-Spanish, n = 23) receiving ambulatory oncology care at a public healthcare safety net hospital in the Houston metropolitan area. Exploratory analyses compared ENRICh FT scores amongst the UN-Spanish group to: (1) un-/under-insured English-speaking Hispanics (UN-English, n = 23) from the same public facility and (2) insured English-speaking Hispanics (INS-English, n = 31) from an academic comprehensive cancer center. Multivariable logistic models compared the outcome of severe FT (score > 6). Results: UN-Spanish Hispanic participants reported high acceptability of the instrument (only 0% responded that the instrument was "very difficult to answer" and 4% that it was "very difficult to understand the questions"; 8% responded that it was "very difficult to remember resources used" and 8% that it was "very difficult to remember the burdens experienced"; and 4% responded that it was "very uncomfortable to respond"). Internal consistency of the FT measure was high (Cronbach's α = 0.906). In qualitative responses, UN-Spanish Hispanics frequently identified a total lack of credit, savings, or income and food insecurity as aspects contributing to FT. UN-Spanish and UN-English Hispanic patients were younger, had lower education and income, resided in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods and had more advanced cancer vs. INS-English Hispanics. There was a higher likelihood of severe FT in UN-Spanish (OR = 2.73, 95% CI 0.77-9.70; p = 0.12) and UN-English (OR = 4.13, 95% CI 1.13-15.12; p = 0.03) vs. INS-English Hispanics. A higher likelihood of severely depleted FT coping resources occurred in UN-Spanish (OR = 4.00, 95% CI 1.07-14.92; p = 0.04) and UN-English (OR = 5.73, 95% CI 1.49-22.1; p = 0.01) vs. INS-English. The likelihood of FT did not differ between UN-Spanish and UN-English in both models (p = 0.59 and p = 0.62 respectively). Conclusion: In medically underserved, uninsured Hispanic patients with cancer, comprehensive Spanish-language FT assessment in low English proficiency participants was feasible, acceptable, and internally consistent. Future studies employing tailored FT assessment and intervention should encompass the key privations and hardships in this population.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Oncology telemedicine was implemented rapidly after COVID-19. We examined multilevel correlates and outcomes of telemedicine use for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for cancer. METHODS: Upon implementation of a telemedicine platform at a comprehensive cancer center, we analyzed 468 consecutive patient RT courses from March 16, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients were categorized as using telemedicine during ≥1 weekly oncologist visits versus in-person oncologist management only. Temporal trends were evaluated with Cochran-Armitage tests; chi-squared test and multilevel multivariable logistic models identified correlates of use and outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 33% used telemedicine versus 67% in-person only oncologist management. Temporal trends (ptrend < 0.001) correlated with policy changes: uptake was rapid after local social-distancing restrictions, reaching peak use (35% of visits) within 4 weeks of implementation. Use declined to 15% after national "Opening Up America Again" guidelines. In the multilevel model, patients more likely to use telemedicine were White non-Hispanic versus Black or Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.72; p = 0.04) or receiving ≥6 fractions of RT versus 1-5 fractions (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.29-8.80; p < 0.001). Model intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated 43% utilization variation was physician-level driven. Treatment toxicities and 30-day emergency visits or unplanned hospitalizations did not differ for patients using versus not using telemedicine (p > 0.05, all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Though toxicities were similar with telemedicine oncology management, there remained lower uptake among non-White patients. Continuing strategies for oncology telemedicine implementation should address multilevel patient, physician, and policy factors to optimize telemedicine's potential to surmount-and not exacerbate-barriers to quality cancer care.