Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of two validated instruments to measure financial hardship in cancer survivors: comprehensive score for financial toxicity (COST) versus personal financial wellness (PFW) scale.
D'Rummo, Kevin A; Nganga, David; Chollet-Hinton, Lynn; Shen, Xinglei.
Afiliação
  • D'Rummo KA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Nganga D; The University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS, USA.
  • Chollet-Hinton L; Department of Biostatistics & Data Science, Medical Center, The University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA.
  • Shen X; Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, 4001 Rainbow BlvdMailstop 4033, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA. xshen@kumc.edu.
Support Care Cancer ; 31(1): 12, 2022 Dec 14.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36513902
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Financial distress and financial toxicity are recognized challenges in cancer survivorship. Financial toxicity includes both objective measures of hardship and subjective distress. We hypothesized that subjective financial distress is correlated to overall holistic financial toxicity. We compared two widely accepted instruments to measure financial distress and financial toxicity.

METHODS:

Patients in the follow-up phase of care at a single institution were surveyed regarding demographic and economic status. Financial toxicity was measured using the comprehensive score for financial toxicity-functional assessment of chronic illness (COST-FACIT) and financial distress using the personal financial wellness (PFW) scale. Surveys were analyzed for correlation and internal consistency. Patient score distributions were compared. Associations between survey scores and patient factors were assessed using multivariable linear regression models.

RESULTS:

A total of 116 patients were included. Scores from the COST-FACIT showed a strong correlation with PFW scores (r = 0.90, p < 0.0001). Scale reliability was high for both the COST-FACIT (α = 0.92) and PFW (α = 0.97) surveys. Score distributions exhibited left skew for both surveys, with 9.5% of patient scores falling in the worst quartile of possible scores on each respective survey. The strongest predictors of financial distress and financial toxicity included young age, lower monetary savings, lower household income, and less perceived social support during cancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS:

The COST-FACIT measure of financial toxicity correlated strongly with PFW measure of financial distress. Although these instruments were designed to assess different concepts (financial distress vs financial toxicity), they gave strikingly similar results. Either instrument may be used as a meaningful patient-reported outcome for study of financial distress in cancer survivors. However, the COST-FACIT construct of financial toxicity does not appear to add additional information beyond financial distress.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Sobreviventes de Câncer / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Support Care Cancer Assunto da revista: NEOPLASIAS / SERVICOS DE SAUDE Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Sobreviventes de Câncer / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Support Care Cancer Assunto da revista: NEOPLASIAS / SERVICOS DE SAUDE Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos