Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36048837›Full record

ArticleDiabetes care2022

Measurement and Validation of the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) in a Population With Diabetes.

Minal R Patel, Guanghao Zhang, Michele Heisler, Peter X K Song, John D Piette, Xu Shi, Hae Mi Choe, Alyssa Smith, Kenneth Resnicow

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetes care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Minal R PatelDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI.ORCID 0000-0002-3400-5155
Guanghao ZhangDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI.
Michele HeislerDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI.
Peter X K SongDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI.
John D PietteDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI.
Xu ShiDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI.
Hae Mi ChoeCollege of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Alyssa SmithDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI.
Kenneth ResnicowDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI.
University of Michigan · US

Funding

Pilot and Feasibility ProgramP30DK092926 · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · 2025 to 2025
$779k
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK116715
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity-Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (COST-FACIT) is a validated instrument measuring financial distress among people with cancer. The reliability and construct validity of the 11-item COST-FACIT were examined in adults with diabetes and high A1C. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsWe examined the factor structure (exploratory factor analysis), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach α), floor/ceiling effects, known-groups validity, and predictive validity among a sample of 600 adults with diabetes and high A1C.

resultsCOST-FACIT demonstrated a two-factor structure with high internal consistency: general financial situation (7-items, α = 0.86) and impact of illness on financial situation (4-items, α = 0.73). The measure demonstrated a ceiling effect for 2% of participants and floor effects for 7%. Worse financial toxicity scores were observed among adults who were women, were below the poverty line, had government-sponsored health insurance, were middle-aged, were not in the workforce, and had less educational attainment (P < 0.01). Worse financial toxicity was observed for those engaging in cost coping behaviors, such as taking less or skipping medicines, delaying care, borrowing money, "maxing out" the limit on credit cards, and not paying bills (P < 0.01). In regression models for the full measure and its two factors, worse financial toxicity was correlated with higher A1C (P < 0.01), higher levels of diabetes distress (P < 0.01), more chronic conditions (P < 0.01), and more depressive symptoms (P < 0.01).

conclusionsFindings support both the reliability and validity of the COST-FACIT tool among adults with diabetes and high A1C levels. More research is needed to support the use of the COST-FACIT tool as a clinically relevant patient-centered instrument for diabetes care.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusFinancial StressAdultFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

PMID36048837
PMCPMC9679256
OpenAlexW4294044501

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.