A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of two validated instruments to measure financial hardship in cancer survivors: comprehensive score for financial toxicity (COST) versus personal financial wellness (PFW) scale. | LitMetric

Purpose: Financial distress and financial toxicity are recognized challenges in cancer survivorship. Financial toxicity includes both objective measures of hardship and subjective distress. We hypothesized that subjective financial distress is correlated to overall holistic financial toxicity. We compared two widely accepted instruments to measure financial distress and financial toxicity.

Methods: Patients in the follow-up phase of care at a single institution were surveyed regarding demographic and economic status. Financial toxicity was measured using the comprehensive score for financial toxicity-functional assessment of chronic illness (COST-FACIT) and financial distress using the personal financial wellness (PFW) scale. Surveys were analyzed for correlation and internal consistency. Patient score distributions were compared. Associations between survey scores and patient factors were assessed using multivariable linear regression models.

Results: A total of 116 patients were included. Scores from the COST-FACIT showed a strong correlation with PFW scores (r = 0.90, p < 0.0001). Scale reliability was high for both the COST-FACIT (α = 0.92) and PFW (α = 0.97) surveys. Score distributions exhibited left skew for both surveys, with 9.5% of patient scores falling in the worst quartile of possible scores on each respective survey. The strongest predictors of financial distress and financial toxicity included young age, lower monetary savings, lower household income, and less perceived social support during cancer treatment.

Conclusions: The COST-FACIT measure of financial toxicity correlated strongly with PFW measure of financial distress. Although these instruments were designed to assess different concepts (financial distress vs financial toxicity), they gave strikingly similar results. Either instrument may be used as a meaningful patient-reported outcome for study of financial distress in cancer survivors. However, the COST-FACIT construct of financial toxicity does not appear to add additional information beyond financial distress.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07455-yDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

financial toxicity
20
financial distress
16
financial
14
instruments measure
8
measure financial
8
comprehensive score
8
score financial
8
personal financial
8
financial wellness
8
wellness pfw
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!