ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026
Toward a validated European instrument to measure the socioeconomic impact of cancer.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Toward a validated European instrument to measure the socioeconomic impact of cancer.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
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
A cancer diagnosis can impose a financial burden on patients and their families, defined as socio-economic impact (SEI) within a framework of the Organization of European Cancer Institutes (OECI). The Socio-Economic Consequences of Cancer (SEC) study assessed SEI in 25 European countries using the Canadian Financial Index of Toxicity (FIT) instrument, showing substantial variation and supporting the need for a validated Europe-specific instrument. We examined the FIT instrument's validity and reliability in a secondary analysis of the SEC study, exploring whether the SEI framework supported its validation. Factor analyses were performed on the largest subgroup sharing cancer type, language, and country. The aim was to test whether the Canadian model could be replicated or a SEI-based model fit better. Reliability and construct validity were analyzed, followed by configural invariance and Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis for cross-country comparability. We used data from Bulgaria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain. The original FIT-instrument failed to replicate in the Spanish sample, leading to an SEI-based model with better fit (CFI = 0.975, RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.104 (0-0.278), χ
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.