Patients experiencing financial distress as a side-effect of cancer are not only reported in the United States, but also in third-party payer healthcare systems in Europe. Since validated survey instruments are a prerequisite for robust and comparable results, we aimed to compile and classify available instruments to enable both a better understanding of the underlying construct of financial toxicity and to facilitate further studies that are adjustable to various healthcare systems. We did a systematic literature search on studies that provide data on perceived cancer-related financial distress experienced by adult patients using PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science databases up to 2018. We analyzed all detected instruments, items domains and questions with regard to their wording, scales and the domains of financial distress covered. Among 3298 records screened, 41 publications based on 40 studies matched our inclusion criteria. Based on the analysis of 352 different questions we identified 6 relevant subdomains that represent perceptions of and reactions to experienced financial distress: (i) active financial spending, (ii) use of passive financial resources, (iii) psychosocial responses, (iv) support seeking, (v) coping with care or (vi) coping with ones’ lifestyle. We found an inconsistent coverage and use of these domains that makes it difficult to compare and quantify the prevalence of financial distress. Moreover, some existing instruments do not reflect relevant domains for patients in third-party payer systems. There is neither a consistent understanding of the construct of financial burden nor do available instruments cover all relevant aspects of a patients’ distress perception. We encourage using the identified six domains to further develop survey instruments and adjust them to different health systems.

Background: Financial toxicity of cancer has so far been discussed primarily in the US health care system and is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. In European health care systems, the socioeconomic impact of cancer is poorly understood. This study investigates the financial burden and patient-reported outcomes of neuroendocrine (NET) or colorectal (CRC) cancer patients at a German Comprehensive Cancer Center. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study surveyed 247 advanced stage patients (n = 122 NET/n = 125 CRC) at the National Center for Tumor Diseases, in Germany about cancer-related out-of-pocket costs, income loss, distress, and quality of life. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to demonstrate the effects of economic deterioration on patients' quality of life and distress. Results: 81% (n = 199) of the patients reported out-of-pocket costs, and 37% (n = 92) income loss as a consequence of their disease. While monthly out-of-pocket costs did not exceed 200€ in 77% of affected patients, 24% of those with income losses reported losing more than 1.200€ per month. High financial loss relative to income was significantly associated with patients' reporting a worse quality of life (p < .05) and more distress (p < .05). Conclusions: Financial toxicity in third-party payer health care systems like Germany is caused rather by income loss than by co-payments. Distress and reduced quality of life due to financial problems seem to amplify the burden that already results from a cancer diagnosis and treatment. If confirmed at a broader scale, there is a need for targeted support measures at the individual and system level.

Financial toxicity is a side effect of cancer that results from the perceived financial distress an individual may experience in the course of the disease. The purpose of this paper is to analyse underlying factors related to subjective financial distress in high-income countries with universal healthcare coverage. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify qualitative and quantitative studies of cancer patient-reported subjective financial distress by performing a search in the databases of PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL up to December 2020. A qualitative synthesis was performed linking the time-dependent occurrence of risk factors to derived categories of risk factors. Out of 4321 identified records, 30 quantitative and 16 qualitative studies were eligible. Classification of risk factors resulted in eight categories with a total of 34 subcategories. Subjective financial distress is primarily determined by pre-diagnosis sociodemographic- factors as well as financial and work factors that might change during the course of the disease. The design of healthcare and social security systems shapes the country-specific degree of subjective financial distress. Further research should focus on evolving multidisciplinary intervention schemes and multidimensional instruments for subjective financial distress to account for identified risk factors in universal healthcare systems more precisely.

No abstract

IntroductionClinically complex patients often require multiple medications. Polypharmacy is associated with inappropriate prescriptions, which may lead to negative outcomes. Few effective tools are available to help physicians optimise patient medication. This study assesses whether an electronic medication management support system (eMMa) reduces hospitalisation and mortality and improves prescription quality/safety in patients with polypharmacy.Methods and analysisPlanned design: pragmatic, parallel cluster-randomised controlled trial; general practices as randomisation unit; patients as analysis unit. As practice recruitment was poor, we included additional data to our primary endpoint analysis for practices and quarters from October 2017 to March 2021. Since randomisation was performed in waves, final study design corresponds to a stepped-wedge design with open cohort and step-length of one quarter. Scope: general practices, Westphalia-Lippe (Germany), caring for BARMER health fund-covered patients. Population: patients (≥18 years) with polypharmacy (≥5 prescriptions). Sample size: initially, 32 patients from each of 539 practices were required for each study arm (17 200 patients/arm), but only 688 practices were randomised after 2 years of recruitment. Design change ensures that 80% power is nonetheless achieved. Intervention: complex intervention eMMa. Follow-up: at least five quarters/cluster (practice). recruitment: practices recruited/randomised at different times; after follow-up, control group practices may access eMMa. Outcomes: primary endpoint is all-cause mortality and hospitalisation; secondary endpoints are number of potentially inappropriate medications, cause-specific hospitalisation preceded by high-risk prescribing and medication underuse. Statistical analysis: primary and secondary outcomes are measured quarterly at patient level. A generalised linear mixed-effect model and repeated patient measurements are used to consider patient clusters within practices. Time and intervention group are considered fixed factors; variation between practices and patients is fitted as random effects. Intention-to-treat principle is used to analyse primary and key secondary endpoints.Ethics and disseminationTrial approved by Ethics Commission of North-Rhine Medical Association. Results will be disseminated through workshops, peer-reviewed publications, local and international conferences.Trial registrationNCT03430336. ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03430336).