Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39427212›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2024

Validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of the Indonesian version of FACIT-COST measure for subjective financial toxicity.

Stevanus Pangestu, Fredrick Dermawan Purba, Hari Setyowibowo, Clara Mukuria, Fanni Rencz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

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. Constructing the scale to measure financial toxicity in cancer patients for Low-middle income countries (FT-LM) by using the modified Delphi method.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Associations between financial toxicity, health-related quality of life, and well-being in Indonesian patients with breast cancer.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Stevanus PangestuDepartment of Health Policy, Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8, Budapest, 1093, Hungary. pangestu@atmajaya.ac.id.
Fredrick Dermawan PurbaDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjajaran, Bandung, Indonesia.
Hari SetyowibowoDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjajaran, Bandung, Indonesia.
Clara MukuriaSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, England, United Kingdom.
Fanni RenczDepartment of Health Policy, Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8, Budapest, 1093, Hungary.

Funding

EuroQol Research Foundation 1644-RA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFinancial toxicity describes the impairment of financial wellbeing in patients due to the burden of cancer diagnosis and care. The COST: A Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Measure of Financial Toxicity (FACIT-COST) is the most widely used cancer-specific measure of subjective financial toxicity, having been validated in multiple languages, but not in Indonesian. This study aimed to validate the Indonesian version of FACIT-COST in a breast cancer sample.

methodsA single-center prospective cohort study was performed in Indonesia. Female breast cancer patients aged ≥ 18 undergoing treatment at baseline were invited to participate and followed for up to six months. The survey included the official Indonesian version of FACIT-COST (v2) which was administered to the patients by interviewers. Clinical information (e.g., metastasis status, disease duration) was provided based on medical records. The following measurement properties of FACIT-COST were tested: distributional characteristics, structural validity (principal component [PCA] and confirmatory factor analyses [CFA]), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega), known-groups validity (Mann-Whitney U or Kruskal-Wallis H test), test-retest reliability, and responsiveness to change.

resultsOverall, 300 female patients participated at baseline. No patients reported the best or worst possible FACIT-COST total scores. The PCA proposed a two-factor model structure for the instrument, which was confirmed by the CFA (RMSEA = 0.042, SRMR = 0.049, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99). The internal consistency reliability of the two factors was considered adequate (Cronbach's alpha = 0.774-0.882, McDonald's omega = 0.786-0.888). The FACIT-COST total score significantly discriminated across the following known-groups: age, education, residential setting, income, employment, metastasis status, number of symptoms, and financial coping strategies. The FACIT-COST demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.96) and satisfactory responsiveness to change (standardized response mean and effect size ranges=|0.39| to |0.92|).

conclusionsThis is the first study to validate the FACIT-COST in patients with breast cancer and to present the measurement properties of the Indonesian version of FACIT-COST. The Indonesian FACIT-COST demonstrates acceptable psychometric performance and shows potential as a valid measure of subjective financial toxicity. The instrument may serve as a valuable tool for informing health policies that focus on providing resource support to improve cancer care in Indonesia.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsPsychometricsAdultAgedCost of IllnessFemaleHumansIndonesiaMiddle AgedProspective StudiesQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesBreast cancerCOSTFinancial toxicityResponsivenessTest-retest reliabilityValidity

Identifiers

PMID39427212
PMCPMC11491015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.