ArticleCurrent oncology reports2025
Mapping Disparities in the Measurement of Financial Toxicity in Cancer Care: A Scoping Review.
Article in Current oncology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Financial toxicity in insured cancer patients: association with global health status in a prospective Brazilian Cohort.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Observational
- Financial toxicity, social support, and negative emotions among caregivers of children with cancer: a cross-sectional study in Western China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewFinancial toxicity from cancer treatment is a significant barrier to equitable care and an important clinical and public health concern. This scoping review examines global patterns in the assessment of financial toxicity in cancer care and compiles an inventory of domains and subdomains used in existing assessment tools. RECENT
findingsFrom 3,343 records screened, 454 studies were included. Most were conducted in high-income countries (81.7%, n = 371), with 93.8% focused on adult populations. Across 438 quantitative studies, 164 distinct financial toxicity questionnaires comprising 1,104 questions were identified. The COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) was the most frequently used tool (40.4%). Only 48.2% of questionnaires had undergone validation in cancer populations. The majority of questions addressed material domains (51.3%), followed by behavioral (29.9%) and psychosocial (18.8%) aspects. The most common subdomains identified were health expenditure within the material domain (9.6%), delaying or forgoing healthcare services within the behavioral domain (12.6%), and perceived financial burden of healthcare costs within the psychosocial domain (12.8%). Findings from 32 qualitative studies aligned with these patterns, highlighting healthcare costs and employment loss as key concerns. Most studies of financial toxicity in cancer care are conducted among adults in high-income countries and measure material domains. Greater attention is needed to expand financial toxicity research in low- and middle-income countries and among pediatric, adolescent, and caregiver populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41174256What 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.