Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41105191›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2025

Characterizing and Addressing the Financial, Time, and Administrative Burdens of Cancer and its Care.

Kendall Lin, Sana Kagalwalla, Arjun Gupta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  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

3 authors.

Kendall LinUniversity of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Sana KagalwallaDivision of Hematology, Oncology & Transplantation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Arjun GuptaDivision of Hematology, Oncology & Transplantation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. arjgupta@umn.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementThe success of cancer care delivery must be evaluated not only by efficacy outcomes such as overall survival, but also by the experiences of patients and their informal caregivers throughout the course of care. Financial, time, and administrative burdens constitute a triad of non-physical "toxicities'' that greatly affect patient and caregiver experiences-and outcomes- and should be routinely considered and addressed in oncology practice. While all these burdens have been ever-prevalent, the increasing complexity of cancer care has made these issues more relevant over time. Financial and time burdens started receiving mainstream attention in the oncology community circa 2010 and 2020 respectively. Administrative burdens are currently less well defined but are increasingly recognized and consequential. Each component of the triad does not exist in isolation-financial, time, and administrative burdens can overlap with, interact with, and compound each other. Attempting to address one may worsen another-for example, transferring a medicine prescription and driving to another pharmacy 20 miles away where the co-pay is $50 lower may reduce direct medication out-of-pocket costs, but increase both time and administrative burden. The current piece summarizes the current status of the field with the hope it galvanizes the oncology community to understand and manage these burdens, so patients and caregivers can live their fullest lives.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessDelivery of Health CareNeoplasmsCaregiversDisease ManagementHealth Care CostsHealth ExpendituresHumansAdministrative burdensCancerFinancial toxicityLogistic burdensTime burdensTime toxicity

Identifiers

PMID41105191
PMCPMC12634805

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.