TY - JOUR
T1 - Correlates of financial toxicity in adult cancer patients and their informal caregivers
AU - Sadigh, Gelareh
AU - Switchenko, Jeffrey
AU - Weaver, Kathryn E.
AU - Elchoufi, Deema
AU - Meisel, Jane
AU - Bilen, Mehmet Asim
AU - Lawson, David
AU - Cella, David
AU - El-Rayes, Bassel
AU - Carlos, Ruth
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by the General Electric-Association of University Radiologists Radiology Research Academic Fellowship (GERRAF).
Funding Information:
Assistance with data acquisition was provided by Debura Coleman, PhD, Emory University. This work has been supported in part by UG1CA189828 (Ruth C Carlos, MD) and the Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University and NIH/NCI under award number P30CA138292 (Jeffrey Switchenko, PhD).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2022/1
Y1 - 2022/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Cancer
KW - Caregiver
KW - Financial toxicity
KW - Health outcomes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85110488351&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85110488351&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00520-021-06424-1
DO - 10.1007/s00520-021-06424-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 34255179
AN - SCOPUS:85110488351
SN - 0941-4355
VL - 30
SP - 217
EP - 225
JO - Supportive Care in Cancer
JF - Supportive Care in Cancer
IS - 1
ER -