Gelareh Sadigh1, Jeffrey Switchenko2, Kathryn E Weaver3, Deema Elchoufi4, Jane Meisel5, Mehmet Asim Bilen5, David Lawson5, David Cella6, Bassel El-Rayes5, Ruth Carlos7. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Rd, Suite BG20, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. g.sadigh@emory.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 4. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 6. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is commonly reported by cancer patients, but few studies have assessed caregiver perceptions. We aimed to validate the modified Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) in cancer caregivers, identify factors associated with financial toxicity in both patients and caregivers, and assess the association of caregiver financial toxicity with patient and caregiver outcomes. METHODS: Using a convenience sampling method, 100 dyads of adult cancer patients and a primary caregiver visiting outpatient oncology clinics (Jan-Sep 2019) were recruited. We assessed the internal consistency and convergent and divergent validity of the modified COST. Multivariable analyses identified correlates of financial toxicity. Association of financial toxicity with care non-adherence, lifestyle-altering behaviors (e.g., home refinance/sale, retirement/saving account withdrawal), and quality of life (QOL) was investigated. RESULTS: Recruited patient vs. caregiver characteristics were as follows: mean age: 60.6 vs. 56.5; 34% vs. 46.4% female; 79% vs. 81.4% white. The caregiver COST measure demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.91). In patients, older age (B, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.4]) and higher annual household income (B, 14.3 [95% CI, 9.3-19.4]) correlated with lower financial toxicity (P < 0.05). In caregivers, lower patient financial toxicity (B, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.2-0.6]) and cancer stages 1-3 (compared to stage 4) (B, 4.6 [95% CI, 0.4-8.8]) correlated with lower financial toxicity (P < 0.05). Increased caregiver financial toxicity correlated with higher care non-adherence in patients, increased lifestyle-altering behaviors, and lower QOL in patients and caregivers (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The COST measure can also be used to assess caregiver financial toxicity. Caregivers' financial toxicity was associated with negative outcomes for both dyad members.
BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is commonly reported by cancer patients, but few studies have assessed caregiver perceptions. We aimed to validate the modified Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) in cancer caregivers, identify factors associated with financial toxicity in both patients and caregivers, and assess the association of caregiver financial toxicity with patient and caregiver outcomes. METHODS: Using a convenience sampling method, 100 dyads of adult cancer patients and a primary caregiver visiting outpatient oncology clinics (Jan-Sep 2019) were recruited. We assessed the internal consistency and convergent and divergent validity of the modified COST. Multivariable analyses identified correlates of financial toxicity. Association of financial toxicity with care non-adherence, lifestyle-altering behaviors (e.g., home refinance/sale, retirement/saving account withdrawal), and quality of life (QOL) was investigated. RESULTS: Recruited patient vs. caregiver characteristics were as follows: mean age: 60.6 vs. 56.5; 34% vs. 46.4% female; 79% vs. 81.4% white. The caregiver COST measure demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.91). In patients, older age (B, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.4]) and higher annual household income (B, 14.3 [95% CI, 9.3-19.4]) correlated with lower financial toxicity (P < 0.05). In caregivers, lower patient financial toxicity (B, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.2-0.6]) and cancer stages 1-3 (compared to stage 4) (B, 4.6 [95% CI, 0.4-8.8]) correlated with lower financial toxicity (P < 0.05). Increased caregiver financial toxicity correlated with higher care non-adherence in patients, increased lifestyle-altering behaviors, and lower QOL in patients and caregivers (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The COST measure can also be used to assess caregiver financial toxicity. Caregivers' financial toxicity was associated with negative outcomes for both dyad members.
Authors: Young Ho Yun; Young Sun Rhee; Im Ok Kang; Jung Suk Lee; Soo Mee Bang; Won Sup Lee; Jun Suk Kim; Si Young Kim; Sang Won Shin; Young Seon Hong Journal: Oncology Date: 2005-05-09 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Maria Pisu; Kelly M Kenzik; Robert A Oster; Patricia Drentea; Kimlin T Ashing; Mona Fouad; Michelle Y Martin Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kate Watabayashi; Jordan Steelquist; Karen A Overstreet; Anthony Leahy; Erin Bradshaw; Kathleen D Gallagher; Alan J Balch; Rebecca Lobb; Laura Lavell; Hannah Linden; Scott D Ramsey; Veena Shankaran Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 11.908
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: Gelareh Sadigh; Debrua Coleman; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Judith O Hopkins; Ruth C Carlos Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Chandylen L Nightingale; Mollie R Canzona; Suzanne C Danhauer; Bryce B Reeve; Dianna S Howard; Reginald D Tucker-Seeley; Shannon L S Golden; Denisha Little-Greene; Michael E Roth; David E Victorson; John M Salsman Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 3.955