Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38366165›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024

Lay healthcare worker financial toxicity intervention: a pilot financial toxicity screening and referral program.

Divya A Parikh, Gladys M Rodriguez, Meera Ragavan, Elizabeth Kerr, Mary Khay Asuncion, Jennifer Hansen, Sandy Srinivas, Alice C Fan, Sumit Shah, Manali I Patel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors.

Divya A Parikh *Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. divyaa@stanford.edu.
Gladys M Rodriguez *Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Meera RagavanKaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, CA, USA.
Elizabeth KerrDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Mary Khay AsuncionDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Jennifer HansenDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Sandy SrinivasDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Alice C FanDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Sumit ShahDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Manali I PatelDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFinancial toxicity is a source of significant distress for patients with urologic cancers, yet few studies have addressed financial burden in this patient population.

methodsWe developed a financial toxicity screening program using a lay health worker (LHW) and social worker (SW) to assess and mitigate financial toxicity in a single academic medical clinic. As part of a quality improvement project, the LHW screened all newly diagnosed patients with advanced stages of prostate, kidney, or urothelial cancer for financial burden using three COST tool questions and referred patients who had significant financial burden to an SW who provided personalized recommendations. The primary outcome was feasibility defined as 80% of patients with financial burden completing the SW consult. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, change in COST Tool responses, and qualitative assessment of financial resources utilized.

resultsThe LHW screened a total of 185 patients for financial toxicity; 82% (n = 152) were male, 65% (n = 120) White, and 75% (n = 139) reported annual household income >$100,000 US Dollars; 60% (n = 114) had prostate cancer. A total of 18 (9.7%) participants screened positive for significant financial burden and were referred to the SW for consultation. All participants (100%) completed and reported satisfaction with the SW consultation and had 0.83 mean lower scores on the COST Tool post-intervention assessment compared to pre-intervention (95% confidence interval [0.26, 1.41]).

conclusionThis multidisciplinary financial toxicity intervention using an LHW and SW was feasible, acceptable, and associated with reduced financial burden among patients with advanced stages of urologic cancers. Future work should evaluate the effect of this intervention among cancer patients in diverse settings.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsUrologic NeoplasmsFinancial StressHealth PersonnelHumansMaleReferral and ConsultationCost-effectivenessCost of careFinancial toxicityHealth services researchLay health worker

Identifiers

PMID38366165

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.