Evidence mapPaperPMID 37404274Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Financial toxicity of cancer treatment in India: towards closing the cancer care gap.

Shankar Prinja, Jyoti Dixit, Nidhi Gupta, Anushikha Dhankhar, Amal Chandra Kataki, Partha Sarathi Roy, Nikita Mehra, Lalit Kumar, Ashish Singh, Pankaj Malhotra and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
22.5field-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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Barriers to help-seeking for cancer in India: A scoping review.The Indian journal of medical research · 2026
    Article
  8. Association between time to treatment and financial toxicity among women with breast cancer in Ethiopia: a multicentre study in a low-resource setting.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

14 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Shankar PrinjaDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Jyoti DixitDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Nidhi GuptaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India.
Anushikha DhankharDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Amal Chandra KatakiDr. B. Booroah Cancer Institute, Guwahati, India.
Partha Sarathi RoyDr. B. Booroah Cancer Institute, Guwahati, India.
Nikita MehraDepartment of Medical Oncology, Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai, India.
Lalit KumarDepartment of Medical Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.
Ashish SinghDepartment of Medical Oncology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Pankaj MalhotraDepartment of Clinical Hematology and Medical Oncology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Aarti GoyalDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Kavitha RajsekarDepartment of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, India.
Manjunath Nookala KrishnamurthyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India.
Sudeep GuptaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India.
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INBhubaneswar Borooah Cancer Institute · INTata Memorial Hospital · INAll India Institute of Medical Sciences · INCancer Institute (WIA) · INChristian Medical College, Vellore · INGovernment Medical College and Hospital · INMinistry of Health and Family Welfare · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The rising economic burden of cancer on patients is an important determinant of access to treatment initiation and adherence in India. Several publicly financed health insurance (PFHI) schemes have been launched in India, with treatment for cancer as an explicit inclusion in the health benefit packages (HBPs). Although, financial toxicity is widely acknowledged to be a potential consequence of costly cancer treatment, little is known about its prevalence and determinants among the Indian population. There is a need to determine the optimal strategy for clinicians and cancer care centers to address the issue of high costs of care in order to minimize the financial toxicity, promote access to high value care and reduce health disparities. Methods: A total of 12,148 cancer patients were recruited at seven purposively selected cancer centres in India, to assess the out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) and financial toxicity among cancer patients. Mean OOPE incurred for outpatient treatment and hospitalization, was estimated by cancer site, stage, type of treatment and socio-demographic characteristics. Economic impact of cancer care on household financial risk protection was assessed using standard indicators of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and impoverishment, along with the determinants using logistic regression. Results: Mean direct OOPE per outpatient consultation and per episode of hospitalization was estimated as ₹8,053 (US$ 101) and ₹39,085 (US$ 492) respectively. Per patient annual direct OOPE incurred on cancer treatment was estimated as ₹331,177 (US$ 4,171). Diagnostics (36.4%) and medicines (45%) are major contributors of OOPE for outpatient treatment and hospitalization, respectively. The overall prevalence of CHE and impoverishment was higher among patients seeking outpatient treatment (80.4% and 67%, respectively) than hospitalization (29.8% and 17.2%, respectively). The odds of incurring CHE was 7.4 times higher among poorer patients [Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 7.414] than richest. Enrolment in PM-JAY (CHE AOR = 0.426, and impoverishment AOR = 0.395) or a state sponsored scheme (CHE AOR = 0.304 and impoverishment AOR = 0.371) resulted in a significant reduction in CHE and impoverishment for an episode of hospitalization. The prevalence of CHE and impoverishment was significantly higher with hospitalization in private hospitals and longer duration of hospital stay ( Conclusion: There is high economic burden on patients and their families due to cancer treatment. The increase in population and cancer services coverage of PFHI schemes, creating prepayment mechanisms like E-RUPI for outpatient diagnostic and staging services, and strengthening public hospitals can potentially reduce the financial burden among cancer patients in India. The disaggregated OOPE estimates could be useful input for future health technology analyses to determine cost-effective treatment strategies.

Indexed as

Financial StressNeoplasmsFamily CharacteristicsHealth ExpendituresHospitalizationHumansInsurance, Healthcancercatastrophic health expendituredirect out of pocket expenditurefinancial toxicityhospitalizationimpoverishmentindirect cost due to loss of productivityoutpatient care

Identifiers

PMID37404274
PMCPMC10316647
OpenAlexW4381250748

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.