Cancer survivor preferences on the timing and content of interventions to mitigate financial toxicity associated with cancer treatment.

Autor: Huq, Maisha R., Schwartz, Marc D., Derry-Vick, Heather, Khoudary, Amanda, Sorgen, Lia, Billini, Osairys, Gunning, Thomas S., Luck, Conor, Kaushik, Shreya, Hurley, Vanessa B., Marshall, John, Weinberg, Benjamin A., Tesfaye, Anteneh, Ip, Andrew, Potosky, Arnold L., Conley, Claire C.
Zdroj: Supportive Care in Cancer; Dec2024, Vol. 32 Issue 12, p1-9, 9p
Abstrakt: Purpose: Despite growing research on financial toxicity among cancer survivors, large gaps remain in understanding how to intervene to minimize financial toxicity. Uptake and efficacy of interventions mitigating cancer financial toxicity, though promising, remain limited and inconsistent. To date, survivor preferences for financial toxicity interventions are underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate survivor preferences for timing and content of a survivor-facing intervention to address financial toxicity. Methods: Adult survivors (N = 105) of colorectal cancer (N = 55) or Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (N = 50) from three tertiary care centers self-reported demographic and clinical characteristics, comorbidities, mental health, financial impact of cancer (Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity scale), and preferences for intervention timing and content. Chi-square tests examined associations between intervention timing and content preferences with financial toxicity score. ANOVAs and correlation analyses described associations between the number of intervention components survivors endorsed and survivors’ characteristics. Results: Regarding intervention timing, 79% of survivors favored intervention before treatment. The most frequently endorsed content was understanding out-of-pocket costs and insurance (48.6%) and applying for aid (39%). Survivors experiencing higher financial toxicity reported greater interest in all intervention components. Survivors with colorectal cancer (p =.018), < 65 years (p =.019), higher financial toxicity (p <.001), greater life-altering (p <.001) and care-altering (p =.014) coping behaviors, and poorer mental health (p =.008) endorsed more intervention components. Conclusions: Actionable insights to improve financial toxicity interventions may be to offer assistance earlier than currently provided (i.e. before treatment) and to include certain topics currently rarely offered (e.g., stress management, budget development support) in line with survivors’ preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Databáze: Complementary Index
Externí odkaz: