ArticleCureus2026
Patient Perceptions of a Financial Resource Handout Following Gynecologic Cancer Diagnosis: A Mixed-Methods Study of Feasibility and Patient-Reported Utility.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction This study aimed to evaluate and understand the perceived utility of a handout providing information about financial resources distributed to patients with diagnosed gynecologic malignancies. Methods We administered a survey querying patient perception of financial toxicity shortly after receiving a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and then provided a handout describing various financial resources for individuals with oncologic diagnoses. Information regarding patient demographics, oncologic characteristics, and treatment was collected. A subsequent survey was administered three to six months later, investigating the utility of the information provided in the handout. Multimethod analysis was done to evaluate the impact of the intervention. Results Twenty-seven participants participated in the study, with 12 participants (44.4%) having a high financial burden and 15 participants (55.6%) having a low financial burden. There were no differences in patient, oncologic, or treatment characteristics across those groups. Qualitative experience of the handout intervention was entirely positive or neutral, with no differences in intervention perception between groups. The positive responses described perceived benefits of the study for certain individuals, while the remaining neutral responses mentioned high levels of insurance coverage and experiencing support from the medical team. Conclusion Financial toxicity represents a meaningful source of concern and challenge for patients with gynecologic malignancies. By providing the handout, a subset of patients described meaningful anticipatory benefits, including planning for employment disruption and retirement. Patients with neutral responses to the intervention cited their comprehensive insurance coverage and existing institutional support as obviating the maximal positive impact of the handout. Further research should explore additional interventions for supporting patients with gynecologic malignancies.
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.