Identifying priorities for research on financial risk protection to achieve universal health coverage: a scoping overview of reviews

ESMO expert consensus statements on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity, defined as both the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress from a cancer diagnosis and its treatment, is a topic of interest in the assessment of the quality of life of patients with cancer and their families. Current evidence implicates financial toxicity in psychosocial, economic and other harms, leading to suboptimal cancer outcomes along the entire trajectory of diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, survivorship and palliation. This paper presents the results of a virtual consensus, based on the evidence base to date, on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with and beyond cancer organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in 2022.

METHODS

A Delphi panel of 19 experts from 11 countries was convened taking into account multidisciplinarity, diversity in health system contexts and research relevance. The international panel of experts was divided into four working groups (WGs) to address questions relating to distinct thematic areas: patients with cancer at risk of financial toxicity; management of financial toxicity during the initial phase of treatment at the hospital/ambulatory settings; financial toxicity during the continuing phase and at end of life; and financial risk protection for survivors of cancer, and in cancer recurrence. After comprehensively reviewing the literature, statements were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment, and voting.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 25 evidence-informed consensus statements were developed, which answer 13 questions on financial toxicity. They cover evidence summaries, practice recommendations/guiding statements and policy recommendations relevant across health systems. These consensus statements aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of financial toxicity and guide clinicians globally in mitigating its impact, emphasizing the importance of further research, best practices and guidelines.

An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the lived experience of people with multimorbidity in low- and middle-income countries

People living with multimorbidity (PLWMM) have multiple needs and require long-term personalised care, which necessitates an integrated people-centred approach to healthcare. However, people-centred care may risk being a buzzword in global health and cannot be achieved unless we consider and prioritise the lived experience of the people themselves. This study captures the lived experiences of PLWMM in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by exploring their perspectives, experiences, and aspirations.We analysed 50 semi-structured interview responses from 10 LMICs across three regions-South Asia, Latin America, and Western Africa-using an interpretative phenomenological analysis approach.The bodily, social, and system experiences of illness by respondents were multidirectional and interactive, and largely captured the complexity of living with multimorbidity. Despite expensive treatments, many experienced little improvements in their conditions and felt that healthcare was not tailored to their needs. Disease management involved multiple and fragmented healthcare providers with lack of guidance, resulting in repetitive procedures, loss of time, confusion, and frustration. Financial burden was exacerbated by lost productivity and extreme finance coping strategies, creating a vicious cycle. Against the backdrop of uncertainty and disruption due to illness, many demonstrated an ability to cope with their conditions and navigate the healthcare system. Respondents' priorities were reflective of their desire to return to a pre-illness way of life-resuming work, caring for family, and maintaining a sense of independence and normalcy despite illness. Respondents had a wide range of needs that required financial, health education, integrated care, and mental health support.In discussion with respondents on outcomes, it appeared that many have complementary views about what is important and relevant, which may differ from the outcomes established by clinicians and researchers. This knowledge needs to complement and be incorporated into existing research and treatment models to ensure healthcare remains focused on the human and our evolving needs.

Policy analysis of the protection of Iranian households against catastrophic health expenditures: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the adoption of various policies and strategies in recent decades, the Iranian health system has not succeeded in protecting households against catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and impoverishment. Accordingly, this qualitative study aimed to critically analyze current policies for reducing CHE.

METHODS

This qualitative study was conducted as a retrospective policy analysis based on a document review and semi-structured interviews with key informants between July to October 2022. Two theoretical frameworks were used, including the Analysis of Determinants of Policy Impact (ADEPT) model and Walt and Gilson's "Policy Triangle framework." The country's related documents were searched through databases. In total, 35 participants were interviewed. Interviews and documents were analyzed using directed content analysis in MAXQDA v12 software. Interobserver reliability, peer check, and member check were done to confirm the trustworthiness of the data.

RESULTS

Twelve main themes and 42 sub-themes emerged from the data. The findings revealed that policy accessibility, policy background, and a clear statement of goals influenced the policy process. However, resources, monitoring and evaluation, opportunities, and obligations negatively affected the implementation process. In addition, a policy analysis based on the policy triangle framework demonstrated that the main factors affecting the policy on reducing CHE in Iran were "conflicts of interest," "contextual factors," "monitoring and evaluation," and "intersectoral relationship" factors.

CONCLUSION

The present study reflected the multifaceted nature of the barriers to reducing CHE in Iran. The implementation of the policy on reducing CHE requires the political will to improve intersectoral collaboration, strengthen the stewardship role of the Ministry of Health, design monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and prevent personal and organizational conflicts of interest.