Beverley M Essue1,2, Nicolas Iragorri1, Natalie Fitzgerald1, Claire de Oliveira1,3. 1. Health Economics and Organization Performance, The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. University of York, York, England.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Psychosocial costs, or quality of life costs, account for psychological distress, pain, suffering and other negative experiences associated with cancer. They contribute to the overall economic burden of cancer that patients experience. But this category of costs remains poorly understood. This hinders opportunities to make the best cancer control policy decisions. This study explored the psychosocial cost burden associated with cancer, how studies measure psychosocial costs and the impact of this burden. METHODS: A systematic literature review of academic and grey literature published from 2008 to 2018 was conducted by searching electronic databases, guided by the Institute of Medicine's conceptualization of psychosocial burden. Results were analyzed using a narrative synthesis and a weighted proportion of populations affected was calculated. Study quality was assessed using the Ottawa-Newcastle instrument. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were included. There was variation in how psychosocial costs were conceptualized and an inconsistent approach to measurement. Most studies measured social dimensions and focused on the financial consequences of paying for care. Fewer studies assessed costs associated with the other domains of this burden, including psychological, physical, and spiritual dimensions. Fourty-four percent of cancer populations studied were impacted by psychosocial costs and this varied by disease site (38%-71%). Two studies monetized the psychosocial cost burden, estimating a lifetime cost per case ranging from CAD$427753 to CAD$528769. Studies were of varying quality; 60% of cross-sectional studies had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Consistency in approach to measurement would help to elevate this issue for researchers and decision makers. At two-thirds of the total economic burden of cancer, economic evaluations should account for psychosocial costs to better inform decision-making. More support is needed to address the psychosocial cost burden faced by patients and their families.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Psychosocial costs, or quality of life costs, account for psychological distress, pain, suffering and other negative experiences associated with cancer. They contribute to the overall economic burden of cancer that patients experience. But this category of costs remains poorly understood. This hinders opportunities to make the best cancer control policy decisions. This study explored the psychosocial cost burden associated with cancer, how studies measure psychosocial costs and the impact of this burden. METHODS: A systematic literature review of academic and grey literature published from 2008 to 2018 was conducted by searching electronic databases, guided by the Institute of Medicine's conceptualization of psychosocial burden. Results were analyzed using a narrative synthesis and a weighted proportion of populations affected was calculated. Study quality was assessed using the Ottawa-Newcastle instrument. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were included. There was variation in how psychosocial costs were conceptualized and an inconsistent approach to measurement. Most studies measured social dimensions and focused on the financial consequences of paying for care. Fewer studies assessed costs associated with the other domains of this burden, including psychological, physical, and spiritual dimensions. Fourty-four percent of cancer populations studied were impacted by psychosocial costs and this varied by disease site (38%-71%). Two studies monetized the psychosocial cost burden, estimating a lifetime cost per case ranging from CAD$427753 to CAD$528769. Studies were of varying quality; 60% of cross-sectional studies had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Consistency in approach to measurement would help to elevate this issue for researchers and decision makers. At two-thirds of the total economic burden of cancer, economic evaluations should account for psychosocial costs to better inform decision-making. More support is needed to address the psychosocial cost burden faced by patients and their families.
Authors: Christine M Veenstra; Scott E Regenbogen; Sarah T Hawley; Jennifer J Griggs; Mousumi Banerjee; Ikuko Kato; Kevin C Ward; Arden M Morris Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Michelle S Landwehr; Samantha E Watson; Catherine F Macpherson; Katherine A Novak; Rebecca H Johnson Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2016-02-07 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Katharina M D Merollini; Louisa G Gordon; Yiu M Ho; Joanne F Aitken; Michael G Kimlin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 4.614