Screening for Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Autor:	Samaha NL; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland., Mady LJ; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland., Armache M; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland., Hearn M; Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland., Stemme R; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland., Jagsi R; Chair, Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia., Gharzai LA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: Laila.Gharzai@northwestern.edu.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR [J Am Coll Radiol] 2024 Sep; Vol. 21 (9), pp. 1380-1397. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 May 17.
DOI:	10.1016/j.jacr.2024.04.024
Abstrakt:	Objective: Despite the pervasiveness and adverse impacts of financial toxicity (FT) in cancer care, there are no definitive measures for FT screening that have been widely integrated into clinical practice. The aim of this review is to evaluate current methods of assessing FT among patients with cancer and confirm factors associated with higher risk of FT. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We included peer-reviewed studies that cross-sectionally, longitudinally, or prospectively measured the self-reported financial impact of patients undergoing cancer care in the United States. Results: Out of 1,085 identified studies, 51 met final inclusion criteria. Outcomes evaluated included FT measures or tools, time and setting of screening, FT prevalence, and sociodemographic or clinical patient-level associated factors. Our findings demonstrate that there is wide variability in FT screening practices including in the timing (diagnosis versus treatment versus survivorship), setting (clinic-based, online, telephone or mail), tools used (21 unique tools, 7 previously validated), and interpretations of screening results (varying FT score cutoffs defining high versus low FT). Younger age, lower income, lower education, non-White race, employment status change, advanced cancer stage, and systemic or radiation therapy were among factors associated with worse FT across the studies. Discussion: FT screening remains heterogenous within the United States. With the ever-escalating cost of cancer care, and the strong association between FT and poor patient outcomes, universal and routine FT screening is imperative in cancer care. Further research and multifaceted interventions identifying best practices for FT screening are needed. (Copyright © 2024 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu