Syed Zafar

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major source of financial burden and distress, which has 3 main domains: (1) psychological distress; (2) cost-related care non-adherence or medical care deferral, and (3) tradeoffs with basic non-medical needs. We propose 4 ways to reduce financial distress in CVD: (1) policymakers can expand insurance coverage and curtail underinsurance; (2) health systems can limit expenditure on low-benefit, high-cost treatments while developing services for high-risk individuals; (3) physicians can engage in shared-decision-making for high-cost interventions, and (4) community-based initiatives can support patients with system navigation and financial coping. Avenues for research include (1) analysis of how healthcare policies affect financial burden; (2) comparative effectiveness studies examining high and low-cost strategies for CVD management; and (3) studying interventions to reduce financial burden, financial coaching, and community health worker integration.

PURPOSE: The social impact of cancer on patients and their family is well known. Yet, unlike with physical and financial toxicities, no validated tools are available to measure this impact. This study aimed at developing, validating, and implementing a novel social toxicity assessment tool for patients with cancer diagnosis (STAT-C). METHODS: Questions were generated through multiple steps including focus groups of patients, their families, and oncology care professionals. These steps along with relevant literature resulted in the development of an initial 20-item questionnaire. Content validity and relevance of the tool were assessed using Content Validity Index for individual items and Content Validity Index for the entire scale. Following expert examination, the constructed STAT-C tool consisted of 14 items grouped into three domains-social relations, social activities, and economic impact. Based on the total possible score for the survey in 150 patients for all the items, three levels of a socioeconomic toxicity were determined-severe social toxicity, mild social toxicity, and no social toxicity. RESULTS: The 14 items were marked as relevant, and the Content Validity Index for individual items ranged between 0.80 and 1.00. An overall average Content Validity Index for the entire scale of 0.87 showed high content validity of the constructed tool. Exploratory factor analysis revealed retention of 13 items of the constructed STAT-C Tool, which loaded across three factors that mapped groupings into measures of social relations, social activities, and economic impact domains. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that STAT-C is a valid, reliable tool, and well captures and measures unique and pertinent social toxicity constructs for Arabic-speaking patients. The tool should enable oncology professionals to deliver better patient-centered care as a component of a comprehensive approach.

BACKGROUND Patients with cancer are at risk for both objective and subjective financial distress. Financial distress during treatment is adversely associated with physical and mental well-being. Little is known about whether patients' subjective financial distress changes during the course of their treatment.method This is a cross-sectional study of insured adults with solid tumors on anti-cancer therapy for ≥1 month, surveyed at a referral center and three rural oncology clinics. The goal was to investigate how financial distress varies depending on where patients are in the course of cancer therapy. Financial distress (FD) was assessed via a validated measure; out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were estimated and medical records were reviewed for disease/treatment data. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the potential association between treatment length and financial distress.RESULTS Among 300 participants (86% response rate), median age was 60 years (range 27-91), 52.3% were male, 78.3% had stage IV cancer or metastatic recurrence, 36.7% were retired, and 56% had private insurance. Median income was $60,000/year and median OOP costs including insurance premiums were $592/month. Median FD score (7.4/10, SD 2.5) corresponded to low FD with 16.3% reporting high/overwhelming distress. Treatment duration was not associated with the odds of experiencing high/overwhelming FD in single-predictor (OR = 1.01, CI [.93, 1.09], P = .86) or multiple predictor regression models (OR = .98, CI [.86, 1.12], P = .79). Treatment duration was not correlated with FD as a continuous variable (P = .92).LIMITATIONS This study is limited by its cross-sectional design and generalizability to patients with early-stage cancer and those being treated outside of a major referral center.CONCLUSION Severity of cancer treatment-related financial distress did not correlate with time on treatment, indicating that patients are at risk for FD throughout the treatment continuum. Screening for and addressing financial distress should occur throughout the course of cancer therapy.

PURPOSE: Insured patients with cancer face high treatment-related, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and often cannot access financial assistance. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of Bridge, a patient-facing app designed to identify eligible financial resources for patients. We hypothesized that patients using Bridge would experience greater OOP cost reduction than controls. METHODS: We enrolled patients with cancer who had OOP expenses from January 2018 to March 2019. We randomly assigned patients 1:1 to intervention (Bridge) versus control (financial assistance educational websites). Primary and secondary outcomes were self-reported OOP costs and subjective financial distress 3 months postenrollment. In post hoc analyses, we analyzed application for and receipt of financial assistance at 3 months postenrollment. We used chi-square, Mann-Whitney tests, and logistic regression to compare study arms. RESULTS: We enrolled 200 patients. The median age was 57 years (IQR, 47.0-63.0). Most patients had private insurance (71%), and the median household income was $62,000 in US dollars (USD) (IQR, $36,000-$100,000 [USD]). Substantial missing data precluded assessment of primary and secondary outcomes. In post hoc analyses, patients in the Bridge arm were more likely than controls to both apply for and receive financial assistance. CONCLUSION: We were unable to test our primary outcome because of excessive missing follow-up survey data. In exploratory post hoc analyses, patients who received a financial assistance app were more likely to apply for and receive financial assistance. Ultimately, our study highlights challenges faced in identifying measurable outcomes and retaining participants in a randomized, controlled trial of a mobile app to alleviate financial toxicity.