Search

Abstract Background Though financial hardship is a well‐documented adverse effect of standard‐of‐care cancer treatment, little is known about out‐of‐pocket costs and their impact on patients participating in cancer clinical trials. This study explored the financial effects of cancer clinical trial participation. Methods This cross‐sectional analysis used survey data collected in December 2022 and May 2023 from individuals with cancer previously served by Patient Advocate Foundation, a nonprofit organization providing social needs navigation and financial assistance to US adults with a chronic illness. Surveys included questions on cancer clinical trial participation, trial‐related financial hardship, and sociodemographic data. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted using Cramer's V to estimate the in‐sample magnitude of association. Associations between trial‐related financial hardship and sociodemographics were estimated using adjusted relative risks (aRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) from modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors. Results Of 650 survey respondents, 18% (N = 118) reported ever participating in a cancer clinical trial. Of those, 47% (n = 55) reported financial hardship as a result of their trial participation. Respondents reporting trial‐related financial hardship were more often unemployed or disabled (58% vs. 43%; V = 0.15), Medicare enrolled (53% vs. 40%; V = 0.15), and traveled >1 h to their cancer provider (45% vs. 17%; V = 0.33) compared to respondents reporting no hardship. Respondents who experienced trial‐related financial hardship most often reported expenses from travel (reported by 71% of respondents), medical bills (58%), dining out (40%), or housing needs (40%). Modeling results indicated that respondents traveling >1 h vs. ≤30 min to their cancer provider had a 2.2× higher risk of financial hardship, even after adjusting for respondent race, income, employment, and insurance status (aRR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3–3.8). Most respondents (53%) reported needing $200–$1000 per month to compensate for trial‐related expenses. Over half (51%) of respondents reported less willingness to participate in future clinical trials due to incurred financial hardship. Notably, of patients who did not participate in a cancer clinical trial (n = 532), 13% declined participation due to cost. Conclusion Cancer clinical trial‐related financial hardship, most often stemming from travel expenses, affected almost half of trial‐enrolled patients. Interventions are needed to reduce adverse financial participation effects and potentially improve cancer clinical trial participation.

Abstract Background Family caregivers play an increasing role in cancer treatment decision‐making. We examined bias reported by family caregivers in the support they and their patient received from their healthcare team when making these decisions, including associations with distress. Methods Analysis of 2021 national survey data of family caregivers of patients with cancer (N = 2703). Bias experienced in decision support was assessed with the item: “Have you felt that the support you and the person with cancer have received for making cancer‐related decisions by your doctor or healthcare team has been negatively affected by any of the following?” Check‐all‐that‐apply response options included: age, race, language, education, political affiliation, body weight, insurance type or lack of insurance, income, religion, sexual orientation, and gender/sex. Chi‐square and regression analyses assessed associations between bias and caregiver distress (GAD‐2, PHQ‐2). Results Of 2703 caregiver respondents, 47.4% (n = 1281) reported experiencing ≥1 bias(es) when receiving decision support for making cancer‐related decisions. Bias was more prevalent among younger caregivers, males, transwomen/men or gender non‐conforming caregivers, racial/ethnic minorities, and those providing care over a longer time period. The odds of having high anxiety (GAD‐2 scores ≥ 3) were 2.1 times higher for caregivers experiencing one type of bias (adjusted OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.6–2.8) and 4.2 times higher for caregivers experiencing ≥2 biases (adjusted OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 3.4–5.3) compared to none. Similar results were found for high depression scores (PHQ‐2 scores ≥ 3). Conclusions Nearly half of caregivers involved in their care recipients' cancer‐related decisions report bias in decision support received from the healthcare team. Experiencing bias was strongly associated with high psychological distress.

Abstract Background Given the high risk of COVID‐19 mortality, patients with cancer may be vulnerable to fear of COVID‐19, adverse psychological outcomes, and health care delays. Methods This longitudinal study surveyed the pandemic's impact on patients with cancer (N= 1529) receiving Patient Advocate Foundation services during early and later pandemic. Generalized estimating equation with repeated measures was conducted to assess the effect of COVID‐19 on psychological distress. Logistic regression with repeated measures was used to assess the effect of COVID‐19 on any delays in accessing health care (e.g., specialty care doctors, laboratory, or diagnostic testing, etc.). Results Among 1199 respondents, 94% considered themselves high risk for COVID‐19. Respondents with more fear of COVID‐19 had a higher mean psychological distress score (10.21; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 9.38–11.03) compared to respondents with less fear (7.55; 95% CI 6.75–8.36). Additionally, 47% reported delaying care. Respondents with more fear of COVID‐19 had higher percentages of delayed care than those with less (56; 95% CI 39%–72% vs. 44%; 95% CI 28%–61%). These relationships persisted throughout the pandemic. For respondents with a COVID‐19 diagnosis in their household (n = 116), distress scores were similar despite higher delays in care (58% vs. 27%) than those without COVID‐19. Conclusions Fear of COVID‐19 is linked to psychological distress and delays in care among patients with cancer. Furthermore, those who are personally impacted see exacerbated cancer care delays. Timely psychosocial support and health care coordination are critical to meet increased care needs of patients with cancer during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Abstract Background Burdens related to time spent receiving cancer care may be substantial for patients with incurable, life‐limiting cancers such as metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Estimates of time spent on health care are needed to inform treatment‐related decision‐making. Methods Estimates of time spent receiving cancer‐related health care in the initial 3 months of treatment for patients with MBC were calculated using the following data sources: (a) direct observations from a time‐in‐motion quality improvement evaluation (process mapping); (b) cross‐sectional patient surveys; and (c) administrative claims. Average ambulatory, inpatient, and total health care time were calculated for specific treatments which differed by antineoplastic type and administration method, including fulvestrant (injection, hormonal), letrozole (oral, hormonal), capecitabine (oral, chemotherapy), and paclitaxel (infusion, chemotherapy). Results Average total time spent on health care ranged from 7% to 10% of all days included within the initial 3 months of treatment, depending on treatment. The greatest time contributions were time spent traveling for care and on inpatient services. Time with providers contributed modestly to total care time. Patients receiving infusion/injection treatments, compared with those receiving oral therapy, spent more time in ambulatory care. Health care time was higher for patients receiving chemotherapeutic agents compared to those receiving hormonal agents. Conclusion Time spent traveling and receiving inpatient care represented a substantial burden to patients with MBC, with variation in time by treatment type and administration method.

Abstract Background Little is known about the prevalence of healthy lifestyle (HLS) discussions between providers and older cancer survivors. Methods We utilized cross‐sectional data from older cancer survivors (≥65 years) seen at 12 southeastern cancer centers during 2013‐2015. Data on demographics, time since diagnosis, weight, height, and healthy behaviors were collected. Respondents were asked if providers (oncologists, other physicians, and/or nurses) discussed exercise, healthy diet, weight management, and/or smoking cessation during clinical encounters. Descriptive statistics and bivariate associations between HLS topics and survivor characteristics were calculated. Results Among 1460 cancer survivors, mean age was 74 years (SD 6), most were white (81%), and >1 year postdiagnosis (84%). The majority (71%) reported discussing at least one of three HLS topics (exercise 49%, healthy diet 53%, vegetable consumption 28%); 17% received counseling on all three. Weight loss was recommended to 33% of overweight/obese survivors and smoking cessation to 85% of current smokers. Oncologists and nurses discussed HLS less frequently compared to other physicians. Younger survivors (65‐74 years) received recommendations for exercise, weight loss, and tobacco cessation more often than older survivors (≥75 years). Compared to white respondents, minorities reported discussions on all topics more often except for tobacco cessation. Excluding tobacco cessation, survivors with recent cancer diagnoses (1 year postdiagnosis. Conclusion Despite the American Cancer Society's recommendations, older survivors reported a low prevalence of HLS discussions with their providers, with some variation by demographic groups. Strategies are needed to promote these important discussions in this population.