Nesrine Mejri1,2, Yosra Berrazega3, Ryma Boujnah3, Haifa Rachdi3, Houda El Benna3, Soumaya Labidi3, Hamouda Boussen3. 1. Medical Oncology Department, Abderrahmen Mami Hospital, University of Medicine, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia. nesrinemejriturki2@gmail.com. 2. , Ariana, Tunisia. nesrinemejriturki2@gmail.com. 3. Medical Oncology Department, Abderrahmen Mami Hospital, University of Medicine, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer care-related out-of-pocket expenses and financial toxicity (FT) are a rising burden for patients. We aimed to evaluate patient-reported FT and to identify relevant correlates within a Tunisian population. METHODS: We conducted a survey using the 11-item Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) that could range from 0 = high to 44 = low. FT was grade 0 if ≥ 26, grade 1 = (14-25), grade 2 = (1-13), and grade 3 = 0. Scores were collected along with data regarding patient medical/social features and out-of-pocket expenses. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with higher financial burden. RESULTS: Among the 179 participants, median COST score was 20.8 (Q1 17-Q3 24), with 80.4% of patients experiencing financial toxicity: grade 0 = 20%, grade 1 = 68.4%, grade 2 = 11.7%, grade 3 = 0%. Most patients (66.5%) used to work before cancer and 44.7% reported ceasing work because of cancer. The time to go to the hospital was > 30 min in 66.5% of cases. Unemployment, time to hospital > 30 min, ceasing work because of cancer, and expenses on non-chemotherapy drugs exceeding 70 dinars (25 US dollars) were mostly associated with higher FT on univariate analysis. Distance to hospital and ceasing work because of cancer were the single most significant factors in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Losing work due to cancer and unequal distribution of health care particularly in cities with long travel times to the nearest hospital are the main sources of financial distress.
BACKGROUND:Cancer care-related out-of-pocket expenses and financial toxicity (FT) are a rising burden for patients. We aimed to evaluate patient-reported FT and to identify relevant correlates within a Tunisian population. METHODS: We conducted a survey using the 11-item Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) that could range from 0 = high to 44 = low. FT was grade 0 if ≥ 26, grade 1 = (14-25), grade 2 = (1-13), and grade 3 = 0. Scores were collected along with data regarding patient medical/social features and out-of-pocket expenses. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with higher financial burden. RESULTS: Among the 179 participants, median COST score was 20.8 (Q1 17-Q3 24), with 80.4% of patients experiencing financial toxicity: grade 0 = 20%, grade 1 = 68.4%, grade 2 = 11.7%, grade 3 = 0%. Most patients (66.5%) used to work before cancer and 44.7% reported ceasing work because of cancer. The time to go to the hospital was > 30 min in 66.5% of cases. Unemployment, time to hospital > 30 min, ceasing work because of cancer, and expenses on non-chemotherapy drugs exceeding 70 dinars (25 US dollars) were mostly associated with higher FT on univariate analysis. Distance to hospital and ceasing work because of cancer were the single most significant factors in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Losing work due to cancer and unequal distribution of health care particularly in cities with long travel times to the nearest hospital are the main sources of financial distress.
Authors: Alfred I Neugut; Milayna Subar; Elizabeth Ty Wilde; Scott Stratton; Corey H Brouse; Grace Clarke Hillyer; Victor R Grann; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joshua D Palmer; Tejash T Patel; Harriet Eldredge-Hindy; Scott W Keith; Tapas Patel; Theresa Malatesta; Jessie DiNome; Anne Lowther; Linda Ferguson; Sally Wagenborg; John Smyles; Usha Babaria; Richard Stabile; Eric Gressen; Shari Rudoler; Scot A Fisher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sara Bouberhan; Meghan Shea; Alice Kennedy; Adrienne Erlinger; Hannah Stack-Dunnbier; Mary K Buss; Laureen Moss; Kathleen Nolan; Christopher Awtrey; John L Dalrymple; Leslie Garrett; Fong W Liu; Michele R Hacker; Katharine M Esselen Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Aasthaa Bansal; Catherine R Fedorenko; David K Blough; Karen A Overstreet; Veena Shankaran; Polly Newcomb Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jonas A de Souza; Bonnie J Yap; Kristen Wroblewski; Victoria Blinder; Fabiana S Araújo; Fay J Hlubocky; Lauren H Nicholas; Jeremy M O'Connor; Bruce Brockstein; Mark J Ratain; Christopher K Daugherty; David Cella Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Emeline M Aviki; Bridgette Thom; Kenya Braxton; Andrew J Chi; Beryl Manning-Geist; Fumiko Chino; Carol L Brown; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Francesca M Gany Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Gelareh Sadigh; Jeffrey Switchenko; Kathryn E Weaver; Deema Elchoufi; Jane Meisel; Mehmet Asim Bilen; David Lawson; David Cella; Bassel El-Rayes; Ruth Carlos Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 3.603