ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Association between out-of-pocket expenditure and health-related quality of life among patients receiving cancer treatment: a cross-sectional study from Nepal.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing inequalities in health utility scores among cancer patients undergoing systemic and radiation therapy.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe financial burden of cancer care may significantly impair patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL), yet the extent and nature of this relationship remain underexplored, particularly in low-resource settings. This study aimed to report the HRQoL of patients currently receiving treatment for selected cancers (breast, cervical, lung, oesophageal and stomach) in Nepal. We further investigate the association of out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) with HRQoL.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted from April to May 2024 among 353 patients undergoing cancer treatment in two tertiary cancer hospitals in Nepal. We used the European Quality of Life 5 dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) and the European Quality of Life Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) to obtain their HRQoL. Similarly, we collected sociodemographic and treatment-related data, including OOPE and patient satisfaction. We used the ordinary least squares estimation with robust standard errors to identify the association between OOPE and HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L index score).
resultsThe mean (SD) EQ-5D-5L index score was 0.39 (0.42), and the mean (SD) EQ-VAS score was 56.65 (21.71). Anxiety/depression and pain/discomfort were the most common reported problems (> 90% of the study participants), whereas pain/discomfort had the greatest disability weight (0.17). In the regression analysis, the logarithms of OOPE (β = -0.086; 95% CI: -0.132 to -0.040) was significantly associated with a lower EQ-5D-5L index score. Other significant covariates included being currently not married (β = -0.149; 95% CI: -0.274 to -0.024), having stage IV cancer during diagnosis (β = -0.212; 95% CI: -0.364 to -0.061) and patient satisfaction score (β = 0.015; 95% CI: 0.001 to 0.030).
conclusionsThe study revealed a moderate quality of life among patients currently receiving cancer treatment in Nepal. Higher OOPE along with stage IV cancer during diagnosis and being currently not married were associated with lower HRQoL, whereas higher patient satisfaction score was associated with higher HRQoL. These insights might be helpful for providing targeted interventions such as emphasizing early diagnosis and management and focusing on patient satisfaction and those at financial risk to improve the HRQoL of people with cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.