ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024
Pilot implementation and qualitative evaluation of a financial hardship screening among Native American patients with cancer.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeNative American (NA) patients with cancer are at increased risk of financial hardship due to lack of private health insurance coverage, medical comorbidities, and higher poverty rates. We aimed to implement and evaluate a pilot financial hardship screening (FHS) program among NA patients with cancer.
methodsIn 2022, we piloted the implementation of FHS among adult NA patients with cancer referred by NA-specific health facilities to an NCI-designated cancer center using the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity-Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (COST-FACIT) tool. We dichotomized COST-FACIT scores as mild/no hardship (26-44) and moderate/severe hardship (≤ 25). To evaluate the implementation, we conducted interviews with patients and clinical staff who participated in the screening process. We thematically analyzed interview transcriptions using inductive and deductive coding to identify themes.
resultsOf 42 patients completing FHS, 76.2% reported moderate/severe hardship. Ten patients and four clinical staff (1 physician, 3 NA navigation staff) completed interviews. We identified three themes: (1) FHS perceptions and intervention experiences, (2) FHS efficacy and opportunities for expansion, and (3) nuances for NA patients and patient-related factors. Patients expressed positive experiences with FHS, including identifying financial challenges, but preferences regarding timing varied. Staff reported logistic and sustainability challenges in implementing FHS. However, clinic staff reported positive experiences with the tool, interactions with patients, and the resulting supportive care referrals.
conclusionImplementation of FHS for NA patients with cancer was well received by patients and staff and was perceived by both groups as facilitating efforts to address financial hardship. Measures to improve staffing and sustainability are needed to enable broader implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.