Search

Background In addition to greater delays in cancer screening and greater financial hardship, rural-dwelling cancer patients experience greater costs associated with accessing cancer care, including higher cumulative travel costs. This study aimed to identify and synthesize peer-reviewed research on the cumulative and overlapping costs associated with care access and utilization. Methods A scoping review was conducted to identify relevant studies published after 1995 by searching 5 electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo, and Healthcare Administration. Eligibility was determined using the PEO (Population, Exposure, and Outcomes) method, with clearly defined populations (cancer patients), exposures (financial hardship, toxicity, or distress; travel-related burdens), and outcomes (treatment access, treatment outcomes, health-related quality of life, and survival/mortality). Study characteristics, methods, and findings were extracted and summarized. Results Database searches yielded 6439 results, of which 3366 were unique citations. Of those, 141 were eligible for full-text review, and 98 studies at the intersection of cancer-related travel burdens and financial hardship were included. Five themes emerged as we extracted from the full texts of the included articles: 1) Cancer treatment choices, 2) Receipt of guideline-concordant care, 3) Cancer treatment outcomes, 4) Health-related quality of life, and 5) Propensity to participate in clinical trials. Conclusions This scoping review identifies and summarizes available research at the intersection of cancer care-related travel burdens and financial hardship. This review will inform the development of future interventions aimed at reducing the negative effects of cancer-care related costs on patient outcomes and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the role that local health departments (LHDs) have in cross sector can address alone, including the work of value alignment and the strategic use of organizational authorities. The practices by which LHDs used their authorities to conduct cross-sector work during the pandemic need exploration. Method: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 public health leaders from metropolitan LHDs across the United States. Our interview guide assessed the values that LHD leadership prioritized in their cross-sector work as well as the range of organizational authorities they leveraged to influence external decision-making in other sectors. Results: We found that LHDs approached cross-sector work by leaning on diverse values and authorities, each with unique implications for their work. The LHDs emphasized their approach to value alignment on a sector-by-sector basis, strategically using diverse organizational authorities—economic, political, moral, scientific, and logistical. While each authority and value we assessed was present across all interviewees, how each shaped action varied. Internally, LHDs emphasized certain authorities more than others to the degree that they more closely aligned with prioritized core values. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the ongoing need for LHD leadership to improve their ability to effectively communicate public health values and the unique authorities by which health-supporting work can be facilitated, including how this message must be adapted, depending on the specific sectors with which the LHD needs to partner and the governance arrangement in which the LHD is situated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare discrimination has been associated with health disparities including lower cancer screenings, higher medical mistrust, and strained patient-provider relationships. Our study sought to understand patient-reported discrimination among cancer survivors with limited resources living in the United States. We used cross-sectional survey data distributed by the Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) in 12/2020 and 07/2021. Respondents reported source and reason of healthcare discrimination. Age, sex, race and ethnicity, annual household income, Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA), Area Deprivation Index (ADI), employment status, cancer type, and number of comorbidities were independent variables of interest. The association between these variables and patient-reported healthcare discrimination was estimated using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from a multivariable modified Poisson regression model with robust standard errors. A total of 587 cancer survivors were included in our analysis. Most respondents were female (72%) and aged ≥56 (62%); while 33% were Black, Indigenous, or Person of Color. Overall, 23% reported receipt of discrimination, with the majority reporting doctor, nurse, or healthcare provider as the source (58%). Most common reasons for discrimination included disease status (42%), income/ability to pay (36%), and race and ethnicity (17%). In the adjusted model, retired survivors were 62% less likely to report discrimination compared to those employed (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.23–0.64). Additionally, survivors with ≥3 comorbidities were 86% more likely to report discrimination compared to those survivors with no non-cancer comorbidities (RR 1.86; 95% CI 1.26–2.72). Cancer survivors with limited resources reported substantial discrimination most often from a healthcare provider and most commonly for disease status and income. Discrimination should be mitigated to provide equitable and high-quality cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection (followed by scheduling assistance for those who were HPV+ or inconclusive) compared with scheduling assistance only and usual care among underscreened persons with a cervix (PWAC). Methods: A decision tree analysis was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), or the cost per additional PWAC screened, from the Medicaid/state and clinic perspectives. A hypothetical cohort represented 90,807 low-income, underscreened individuals. Costs and health outcomes were derived from the MyBodyMyTest-3 randomized trial except the usual care health outcomes were derived from literature. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to evaluate model uncertainty. Results: Screening uptake was highest in the self-collection alternative (n = 65,721), followed by the scheduling assistance alternative (n = 34,003) and usual care (n = 18,161). The self-collection alternative costs less and was more effective than the scheduling assistance alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective. Comparing the self-collection alternative with usual care, the ICERs were $284 per additional PWAC screened from the Medicaid/state perspective and $298 per additional PWAC screened from the clinic perspective. PSAs demonstrated that the self-collection alternative was cost-effective compared with usual care at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $300 per additional PWAC screened in 66% of simulations from the Medicaid/state perspective and 58% of simulations from the clinic perspective. Conclusions: Compared with usual care and scheduling assistance, mailing HPV self-collection kits to underscreened individuals appears to be cost-effective in increasing screening uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Financial navigation services support patients with cancer and address the direct and indirect financial burden of cancer diagnosis and treatment. These services are commonly delivered through a variety of frontline oncology support personnel (FOSP) including navigators, social workers, supportive care providers, and other clinic staff, but the perspective of FOSPs is largely absent from current literature on financial burden in oncology. We surveyed a national sample of FOSPs to understand their perspectives on patient financial burden, resource availability, and barriers and facilitators to assisting patients with cancer-related financial burden. METHODS We used Qualtrics online survey software and recruited participants using multiple professional society and interest group mailing lists. Categorical responses were described using frequencies, distributions of numeric survey responses were described using the median and IQR, and two open-ended survey questions were categorized thematically using a priori themes, allowing additional emergent themes. RESULTS Two hundred fourteen FOSPs completed this national survey. Respondents reported a high awareness of patient financial burden and felt comfortable speaking to patients about financial concerns. Patient assistance resources were commonly available, but only 15% described resources as sufficient for the observed needs. A substantial portion of respondents reported moral distress related to this lack of resources. CONCLUSION FOSPs, who already have requisite knowledge and comfort in discussing patient financial needs, are a critical resource for mitigating cancer-related financial burden. Interventions should leverage this resource but prioritize transparency and efficiency to reduce the administrative and emotional toll on the FOSP workforce and reduce the risk of burnout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study sought to understand COVID‐19‐related organizational decisions were made across sectors. To gain this understanding, we conducted semi‐structured interviews with organizational decision‐makers in North Carolina about their experiences responding to COVID‐19. Conventional content analysis was used to analyse the context, inputs, and processes involved in decision‐making. Between October 2020 and February 2021, we interviewed 44 decision‐makers from the following sectors: business (n = 4), community non‐profit (n = 3), county government (n = 4), healthcare (n = 5), local public health (n = 5), public safety (n = 7), religious (n = 6), education (n = 7) and transportation (n = 3). We found that during the pandemic, organizations looked to scientific authorities, the decisions of peer organizations, data about COVID‐19, and their own experience with prior crises. Interpretation of inputs was informed by current political events, societal trends, and organization mission. Decision‐makers had to account for divergent internal opinions and community behaviour. To navigate inputs and contextual factors, organizations decentralized decision‐making authority, formed auxiliary decision‐making bodies, learned to resolve internal conflicts, learned in real time from their crisis response, and routinely communicated decisions with their communities. In conclusion, aligned with systems and contingency theories of decision‐making, decision‐making during COVID‐19 depended on an organization's 'fit' within the specifics of their existing system and their ability to orient the dynamics of that system to their own goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Persons diagnosed with serious chronic illnesses and their caretakers experience multiple types of financial costs that strain their income and generate financial distress. Many turn to medical crowdfunding (MCF) to mitigate the harms of these costs on their health and quality of life. Objective: This scoping review aims to summarize the research on MCF for persons diagnosed with serious chronic illness regarding study designs and methods; the responsible conduct of research practices; and study foci as they relate to stress, stress appraisals, and the coping processes. Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Eligible studies were conducted in countries designated as high income by the World Bank and focused on beneficiaries diagnosed with serious chronic illness. The findings of the included studies were summarized as they related to the key concepts in a conceptual framework derived from an established stress, appraisal, and coping framework and a conceptual model of financial toxicity in pediatric oncology. Results: Overall, 26 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. The main findings included a lack of integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches and the inconsistent reporting of the responsible conduct of research practices. The included studies focused on financial stressors that contributed to financial burden, such as out-of-pocket payments of medical bills, basic living expenses, medical travel expenses, and lost income owing to illness-related work disruptions. Few studies addressed stress appraisals as threatening or the adequacy of available financial resources. When mentioned, appraisals related to the global financial struggle during the COVID-19 pandemic or the capacity of social network members to donate funds. The consequences of MCF included the receipt of 3 forms of social support (tangible, informational, and emotional), privacy loss, embarrassment, and the propagation of scientifically unsupported information. Studies found that friends and family tended to manage MCF campaigns. Although most of the studies (21/26, 81%) focused on monetary outcomes, a few (5/26, 19%) concentrated on peoples' experiences with MCF. Conclusions: The identified methodological gaps highlight the need for more robust and reproducible approaches to using the copious data available on public MCF platforms. The integration of quantitative and qualitative methods will allow for nuanced explorations of the MCF experience. A more consistent elaboration of strategies to promote the responsible conduct of research is warranted to minimize risk to populations that are vulnerable and express concerns regarding the loss of privacy. Finally, an examination of the unanticipated consequences of MCF is critical for the development of future interventions to optimize existing supports while providing needed supports, financial and nonfinancial, that are lacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the need to reduce the impact of financial toxicity among patients with cancer is widely acknowledged, few interventions have been developed to address this issue. We tested a novel, multiphase, patient-centered financial navigation (FN) intervention at a large academic medical center., Methods: We developed a financial toxicity screening tool consisting of the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure plus several additional items based on patient feedback. After systematizing the screening process, 50 patients from the North Carolina Basnight Cancer Hospital were enrolled in the FN intervention following a positive screen for financial distress (COST score <23). The FN intervention involved one-on-one consultations with a trained financial navigator and included an initial comprehensive intake appointment to determine patient eligibility for financial assistance and follow-up appointments to discuss paperwork and application(s) status. We assessed preliminary intervention effectiveness (preintervention and postintervention COST scores) and implementation (ie, fidelity, uptake, acceptability)., Results: All 50 patients assessed for study eligibility screened positive for financial distress. A total of 46 patients completed both the preintervention and postintervention COST instrument and other measures. Postintervention mean COST scores improved from 6.4 at baseline to 13.3 post-FN (P<.0001), indicating a significant decrease in perceived financial toxicity. Fidelity to the intervention was high and 96% of participants received financial assistance., Conclusions: A patient-centered FN intervention fully integrated into an existing care coordination model can help to decrease the burden of cancer-related financial toxicity among patients with cancer experiencing financial distress. Further studies are needed to test FN interventions in various oncology settings and among targeted populations.