Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37740501›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2024

Breast Cancer-Related Financial Toxicity in Sri Lanka: Insights From a Lower Middle-Income Country With Free Universal Public Healthcare.

Sarith Ranawaka, Sathika Gunarathna, Sanjeeva Gunasekera, Christopher M Booth, Matthew Jalink, Laura M Carson, Scott Berry, Bishal Gyawali, Sanjeewa Seneviratne, Don Thiwanka Wijeratne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Sarith RanawakaDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0003-2597-6969
Sathika GunarathnaDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Sanjeeva GunasekeraNational Cancer Institute, Maharagama, Sri Lanka.
Christopher M BoothDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Matthew JalinkDivision of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Laura M CarsonDivision of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Scott BerryDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Bishal GyawaliDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7444-8594
Sanjeewa SeneviratneDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0003-0310-1387
Don Thiwanka WijeratneDivision of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Financial toxicity (FT) describes either objective or perceived excess financial strain due to a cancer diagnosis on the well-being of patients, families, and society. The consequences of FT have been shown to span countries of varied economic tiers and diverse healthcare models. This study attempts to describe FT and its effects in a lower- to middle-income country delivering predominantly public nonfee-levying healthcare. This was a cross-sectional study involving 210 patients with breast cancer of any stage (I to IV), interviewed between 6 and 18 months from the date of diagnosis. Financial toxicity was highly prevalent with 81% reporting 3 or more on a scale of 1 to 5. Costs incurred for travelling (94%), out-of-hospital investigations (87%), and consultation fees outside the public system (81%) were the most common contributors to FT. Daily compromises for food and education were made by 30% and 20%, respectively, with loss of work seen in over one-third. Greater FT was seen with advanced cancer stage and increasing distance to the nearest radiotherapy unit (P = .008 and .01, respectively). Family and relatives were the most common form of financial support (77.6%). In conclusion, FT is substantial in our group, with many having to make daily compromises for basic needs. Many opt to visit the fee-levying private sector for at least some part of their care, despite the availability of an established public nonfee-levying healthcare.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareFemaleFinancial StressHumansSri LankaBreast cancerfinancial toxicityLMIClower-to-middle income countries

Identifiers

PMID37740501
PMCPMC10836306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.