Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28834684›Full record

ArticleJournal of oncology practice2017

Discussing Health Care Expenses in the Oncology Clinic: Analysis of Cost Conversations in Outpatient Encounters.

Wynn G Hunter, S Yousuf Zafar, Ashley Hesson, J Kelly Davis, Christine Kirby, Jamison A Barnett, Peter A Ubel

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03780491 (Understanding and Addressing Patient and Provider Preferences Around Discussions of Cost of Breast Cancer Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03780491 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Understanding and Addressing Patient and Provider Preferences Around Discussions of Cost of Breast Cancer Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of UtahRan2018 to 2020Enrolled100ConditionsBreast CancerArmsCost Discussion
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Communication of Cost in Thyroidectomy: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Financial Toxicity.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Patient perceptions of copay card utilization and policies.Journal of market access & health policy · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Wynn G HunterDuke University, Durham, NC; Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; and Verilogue, Horsham, PA.
S Yousuf ZafarDuke University, Durham, NC; Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; and Verilogue, Horsham, PA.
Ashley HessonDuke University, Durham, NC; Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; and Verilogue, Horsham, PA.
J Kelly DavisDuke University, Durham, NC; Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; and Verilogue, Horsham, PA.
Christine KirbyDuke University, Durham, NC; Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; and Verilogue, Horsham, PA.
Jamison A BarnettDuke University, Durham, NC; Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; and Verilogue, Horsham, PA.
Peter A UbelDuke University, Durham, NC; Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; and Verilogue, Horsham, PA.

Funding

Duke CTSA (Composite)TL1TR001116 · NCATS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BOULWARE, LEIGH E, KRAFT, MONICA · 2013 to 2017
$1.2M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001116
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeASCO identified oncologist-patient conversations about cancer costs as an important component of high-quality care. However, limited data exist characterizing the content of these conversations. We sought to provide novel insight into oncologist-patient cost conversations by determining the content of cost conversations in breast cancer clinic visits.

methodsWe performed content analysis of transcribed dialogue from 677 outpatient appointments for breast cancer management. Encounters featured 677 patients with breast cancer visiting 56 oncologists nationwide from 2010 to 2013.

resultsCost conversations were identified in 22% of visits (95% CI, 19 to 25) and had a median duration of 33 seconds (interquartile range, 19 to 62). Fifty-nine percent of cost conversations were initiated by oncologists (95% CI, 51 to 67), who most commonly brought up costs for antineoplastic agents. By contrast, patients most frequently brought up costs for diagnostic tests. Thirty-eight percent of cost conversations mentioned cost-reducing strategies (95% CI, 30 to 46), which most commonly sought to lower patient costs for endocrine therapies and symptom-alleviating treatments. The three most commonly discussed cost-reducing strategies were: switching to a lower-cost therapy/diagnostic, changing logistics of the intervention, and facilitating copay assistance.

conclusionWe identified cost conversations in approximately one in five breast cancer visits. Cost conversations were mostly oncologist initiated, lasted < 1 minute, and dealt with a wide range of health care expenses. Cost-reducing strategies were mentioned in more than one third of cost conversations and often involved switching antineoplastic agents for lower-cost alternatives or altering logistics of diagnostic tests.

Indexed as

CommunicationHealth Care CostsMedical OncologyPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedAmbulatory CareAntineoplastic AgentsBreast NeoplasmsDiagnostic ImagingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesOncologistsAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID28834684
PMCPMC5684881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.