Electronic finance-related outcome measures (eFROMs): a new approach to screen for cancer-related financial toxicity in clinical practice

A nurse-led intervention for carers of people with high-grade glioma: A case series of carers reporting high distress

Background

Carers play an important role in supporting patients diagnosed with high-grade glioma (HGG). However, this experience is frequently distressing and many carers require support.

Objectives

To describe unmet needs of highly distressed carers of people with HGG and recommendations and referrals made by a nurse to support them within the Care-IS trial.

Methods

Descriptive case series. Carers of people with HGG in the Care-IS trial reporting severe anxiety and/or depression at baseline and/or 4 months and high distress at baseline (during chemoradiotherapy) and at 4 months were included. Carers completed the Partner and Caregiver Supportive Care Needs Scale and Brain Tumor Specific Unmet Needs Survey for carers at baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months. Monthly nurse telephone assessments documented carers' needs, recommendations, and referrals made. Data are reported descriptively.

Results

Four highly distressed carers were identified (N = 98). Each reported a moderate-high need at ≥1 timepoint for: financial support and/or travel insurance; making life decisions in uncertainty; information about cancer prognosis/likely outcome; and coping with unexpected treatment outcomes. Specific brain tumor unmet needs were: adjusting to changes in personality, mental and thinking abilities, and accessing government assistance. Nurses provided information about treatment, side effects, and practical support. Recommendations for clinical care and referrals to community-based services, and medical specialists were offered.

Conclusions

Highly distressed carers have diverse support needs in many domains, which can change over time. Nurses were critical in identifying carers' needs, providing support, and making referrals. Carers' distress and needs require ongoing screening and management.

Opinions and strategies of Australian health professionals on tackling cancer-related financial toxicity: A nationwide survey

AIM

To understand the opinions and current practices of health professionals on the topic of addressing cancer-related financial toxicity among patients.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was distributed through Australian clinical oncology professional organizations/networks. The multidisciplinary Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Financial Toxicity Working Group developed 25 questions relating to the frequency and comfort levels of patient-clinician discussions, opinions about their role, strategies used, and barriers to providing solutions for patients. Descriptive statistics were used and subgroup analyses were undertaken by occupational groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-seven health professionals completed the survey. The majority were female (n = 213, 77%), worked in public facilities (200, 72%), and treated patients with varied cancer types across all of Australia. Most participants agreed that it was appropriate in their clinical role to discuss financial concerns and 231 (88%) believed that these discussions were an important part of high-quality care. However, 73 (28%) stated that they did not have the appropriate information on support services or resources to facilitate such conversations, differing by occupation group; 7 (11%) social workers, 34 (44%) medical specialists, 18 (25%) nurses, and 14 (27%) of other occupations. Hindrances to discussing financial concerns were insufficient resources or support systems to refer to, followed by lack of time in a typical consultation.

CONCLUSION

Health professionals in cancer care commonly address the financial concerns of their patients but attitudes differed across occupations about their role, and frustrations were raised about available solutions. Resources supporting financial-related discussions for all health professionals are urgently needed to advance action in this field.

Patient reported outcome measure domains and tools used among adolescents and young adults with cancer: A scoping review

Adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients and survivors are growing and face with distinct issues from paediatric and older cancer survivors. Hence it is important the issues they encounter are measured using appropriate Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for articles including: (1) AYAs (ages 15-39), (2) Malignant neoplasms, and (3) PROMs. This resulted in 3566 unique articles, 523 were included for full text review, of which 175 were included. These studies included 203 distinct tools to measure PROMs across 31 domains. Physical function was most frequently measured domain, followed by social, emotional and mental health. The most commonly used tools were the EORTC QLQ-C30, HADS and SF-36. PROMs used in AYA cancer patients is a complex topic, this comprehensive review serves as a useful reference for researchers, clinicians and health services who want to better understand, and improve, outcomes among their patients.

Financial Hardship and Quality of Life Among Patients With Advanced Cancer Receiving Outpatient Palliative Care: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced cancer are increasingly experiencing financial hardship (FH) and associated negative health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to describe FH and explore its relationship to quality of life (QOL) in patients with advanced cancer receiving outpatient palliative care (PC).

METHODS

Validated questionnaires assessed FH, QOL dimensions, symptom burden, and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Descriptive statistics characterized the sample and described FH. Pearson correlation and linear regression assessed relationships between FH and QOL.

RESULTS

The average participant (n = 78) age was 56.6 (SD, 12.2) years. Most were female (56.4%), White (50%) or Black (46.2%), and had a range of education, partner statuses, and cancer diagnoses. Median time since cancer diagnosis was 35.5 months (interquartile range, 9-57.3 months). Highest mean symptom burden scores were for pain (2.5 [SD, 1.0]) and fatigue (2.0 [SD, 1.1]), on a 0- to 3-point scale (higher score representing worse symptom burden). The median COST (COmphrehensive Score for financial Toxicity) score was 15.0 (interquartile range, 9.0-23.0). Most (70%) had some (n = 43) or extreme (n = 9) difficulty paying for basic needs. Greater than 28% (n = 21) incurred cancer-related debt. Multivariate models indicated that FH negatively affected role limitations due to physical health ( P = .008), pain ( P = .003), and emotional well-being ( P = .017) QOL dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial hardship, QOL, and symptom burden scores demonstrate need for continued support for and research among patients with advanced cancer. Data support links between FH and important QOL dimensions. Larger, longitudinal studies are needed to understand how FH affects QOL in patients with advanced cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Proactive financial assessment and interventions are needed to support patients with advanced cancer experiencing the cumulative effects of cancer and its treatment.

Greater financial toxicity relates to greater distress and worse quality of life among breast and gynecologic cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity includes distress and burden from cancer-related costs. Women are more likely to experience worse cancer-related financial outcomes than men. This study evaluated breast and gynecologic cancer patients' subjective experiences of financial toxicity and associations with distress and quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey study included measures of financial toxicity (Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity [COST] Version 2), distress (Patient Health Questionnaire), and QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy). Chi-square, t-tests, and ANOVAs examined bivariate relationships. Two regression models tested associations between financial toxicity and distress and QOL, controlling for covariates. Financial toxicity subgroups were compared based on a validated grading system.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 273; 74% breast cancer) averaged 54.65 years (SD = 12.08), were 3.42 years (SD = 4.20) post-diagnosis, and 33% reported cancer-related change in employment status. Financial toxicity was "mild" overall (COST M = 26.11, SD = 11.14); 32% worried about cancer-related financial problems (quite a bit/very much; item-level analysis). Worse financial toxicity related to younger age (p < 0.001), identifying as a non-Asian minority (p = 0.03) or Hispanic (p = 0.01), being single (p < 0.001), lower education (p = 0.004), lower income (p < 0.001), late-stage disease (p = 0.001), recurrent disease (p = 0.004), and active treatment (p < 0.001). In separate multivariable models, greater financial toxicity related to greater distress (β = -0.45 p < 0.001) and worse QOL (β = 0.58, p < 0.001). Financial toxicity subgroups reported clinically significant differences in distress and QOL (p's < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer-related financial burden is associated with pervasive negative effects and may impact subgroups differently. Future research should explore financial experiences across subgroups, aiming to better identify those at risk and build targeted interventions.