A Systematic Review of Financial Toxicity Among Cancer Survivors: We Can’t Pay the Co-Pay
- 486 Downloads
To determine the extent of financial toxicity (FT) among cancer survivors, identify the determinants and how FT is measured.
A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, using relevant terminology and included articles published from 1 January, 2013 to 30 June, 2016. We included observational studies where the primary outcomes included FT and study samples were greater than 200. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed.
From 417 citations, a total of 25 studies were included in this review. Seventy outcomes of FT were reported with 47 covering monetary, objective and subjective indicators of FT. A total of 28–48% of patients reported FT using monetary measures and 16–73% using subjective measures. The most commonly reported factors associated with FT were: being female, younger age, low income at baseline, adjuvant therapies and more recent diagnosis. Relative to non-cancer comparison groups, cancer survivors experienced significantly higher FT. Most studies were cross-sectional and causal inferences between FT and determinants were not possible. Measures of FT were varied and most were not validated, while monetary values of out-of-pocket expenses included different cost components across studies.
A substantial proportion of cancer survivors experience financial hardship irrespective of how it is measured. Using standardised outcomes and longitudinal designs to measure FT would improve determination of the extent of FT. Further research is recommended on reduced work participation and income losses occurring concurrently with FT and on the impacts on treatment non-adherence.
KeywordsCancer Survivor MeSH Financial Burden Medical Tourism Financial Hardship
LG and KM planned the search strategy, and performed searches and extracted the data into tables and Endnote. LG and KM drafted the paper with assistance from RC and AL. RC and AL provided consumer and clinical insights to the project and the written draft. LG synthesised the findings and produced summary information and results for Fig. 2. All authors contributed to the writing and editing of the final draft and have approved the submitted version.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The authors received no funding assistance to conduct this study.
Conflict of interest
KM, AL and RC have no conflicts of interest to disclose. LG received consultancy fees for related work in 2013.
- 9.National Institutes of Health. Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. 2014. Available from: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/cohort. Accessed 10 Aug 2016.
- 31.Gordon LG, Walker SM, Mervin MC, et al. Financial toxicity: a potential side effect of prostate cancer treatment among Australian men. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2015. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12392 [Epub ahead of print].
- 36.Johar M, Mu C, Van Gool K, Wong CY. Bleeding hearts, profiteers, or both: specialist physician fees in an unregulated market. Health Econ. 2016. doi: 10.1002/hec.3317 [Epub ahead of print].
- 38.Scott AM. Health technology assessment in Australia: a role for clinical registries? Aust Health Rev. 2016. doi: 10.1071/AH15109 [Epub ahead of print].
- 39.Wortley S, Tong A, Howard K. Community views and perspectives on public engagement in health technology assessment decision making. Aust Health Rev. 2016. doi: 10.1071/AH15221 [Epub ahead of print].