Comparison of two validated instruments to measure financial hardship in cancer survivors: comprehensive score for financial toxicity (COST) versus personal financial wellness (PFW) scale.
Thoughts
Connects with: @prawitz2006 @zafar2013
Annotations
drummo2022 - p. 2
Scale reliability was high for both the COST-FACIT (α =0.92) and PFW (α =0.97) surveys
drummo2022 - p. 3
The PFW scale was developed and validated as a tool to measure the level of distressand well-being emanating from one’s personal nancial conditions[4]. Though not speci cally designed for cancer patients, the PFW has been extensively used to study nancial distress in cancer populations [6, 14–17].
drummo2022 - p. 3
Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity – Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (COST-FACIT) is a validated cancer-speci c PROM to assess the nancialtoxicityof patients with advanced cancer diagnoses. In the development of the COST, nancial toxicity was identi ed as a composite of ve themes: nancial, resource, affect, coping and effect on family.
drummo2022 - p. 3
patients age 18 or older from a single institution were enrolled during scheduled radiation oncology clinic visits
drummo2022 - p. 3
The development and validation of the PFW has been previously described [19]. The survey consists of eight items representing the sense of an individual’s current nancial state as well as the sentiment towards the individual’s own nancial state. Composite scores range from 1.0 (overwhelming nancial distress/lowest nancial well-being) to 10.0 (no nancial distress/highest nancial well-being), with 5.0 representing average nancial distress
drummo2022 - p. 3
Financial toxicity was measured using the COST-FACIT. The instrument is a validated measure of nancial toxicity for patients with an advanced cancer diagnosis [20]. We used Version 2 of the COST-FACIT, which contains twelve items with a 0–4 response scale. It differs from the original validated version by the addition of the twelfth item statement “My illness has been a nancial hardship to my family and me.” Total scores range from 0–48, with lower scores corresponding to higher patient-reported nancial toxicity.
drummo2022 - p. 4
majority of participants were Caucasian (81%) or African American (14.7%). All patients had health insurance, primarily through Medicare (50%) or private insurance (44%)
drummo2022 - p. 4
The most common primary diagnoses included head and neck cancer (27.6%), prostate cancer (18.1%), and lung cancer (15.5%). Radiotherapy techniques included intensity modulated radiotherapy (47.4%), stereotactic radiotherapy (29.3%), three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (19.0%), and brachytherapy (4.3%). In addition to radiotherapy, 51.7% of patients received systemic therapy and 30.2% had surgical treatment by the time of survey completion.
drummo2022 - p. 10
no apriorifactors for adjustment were speci ed
Note: Red flag