Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40125650›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2025

Cross-Cultural Validation of the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) Measure in an Australian Sample.

Bora Kim, Claudia Rutherford, Lucy Lehane, Judith Fethney, Louise Acret, Tracy King, Patsy Kenny, Richard De Abreu Lourenco, Kate White

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

9 authors.

Bora KimThe Daffodil Centre, A Joint Venture With Cancer Council, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7843-5106
Claudia RutherfordThe Daffodil Centre, A Joint Venture With Cancer Council, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Lucy LehaneClinical Governance, Quality and Safety Department, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Judith FethneySusan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Louise AcretCancer Care Research Unit, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Tracy KingCancer Care Research Unit, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Patsy KennyCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, New South Wales, Australia.
Richard De Abreu LourencoCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, New South Wales, Australia.
Kate WhiteThe Daffodil Centre, A Joint Venture With Cancer Council, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

Sydney Catalyst Pilot and Seed Grants SchemeUTS Business Research Grants Scheme 2016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure developed in the United States measures the financial impact resulting from cancer and its treatment. This paper reports on an Australian cross-cultural validation of the COST measure.

methodsParticipant eligibility criteria included individuals aged ≥ 18, undergoing or completed primary treatment for cancer. Immediate family members of patients were also eligible for Phase 1. Face and content validity were assessed through concurrent interviews and a brief survey (Phase 1). The subsequent revised version of COST was field-tested using a prospective sample of participants to examine item importance, internal consistency reliability, and construct validity (Phase 2).

resultsPhase 1: Pretesting included 20 patients and two family members (mean age 61, range: 20-87). 19 or more patients agreed or strongly agreed that the COST items were written in clear language, easy to understand, and relevant to their experiences. Content analysis of interviews led to the inclusion of two family-related items to improve content coverage (hereby referred to as Australian-COST), along with two additional stand-alone items to facilitate clinical actions. Phase 2: One hundred and twenty-two patients completed a field-test survey. Each Australian-COST item was rated as "extremely important" or "important" by most participants (62%-81%). Cronbach's alpha coefficients were > 0.9 for both the COST and the Australian-COST. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two factors, explaining 64% (COST) and 63% (Australian-COST) of the variance. Both measures discriminated between low and high household income groups (< $39,999/year, > $125,000/year), demonstrating known-groups validity (COST: mean 19.51 vs. 28.33, p = 0.002, Australian-COST: mean 23.51 vs. 33.29, p = 0.006).

conclusionsThe COST is a valid and reliable measure for Australian cancer patients, and the results largely support the construct equivalence across the United States and Australia. The revised version contains new family-related items to enhance content coverage, which may be applicable in other countries where the financial impact of cancer on the family is of significant concern for patients.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessNeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaCross-Cultural ComparisonFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultcancercancer treatmentfinancial distressfinancial toxicitypsychometric validationsupportive care

Identifiers

PMID40125650
PMCPMC11931400

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.