Perceptions of Health Care Providers Concerning Patient and Health Care Provider Strategies to Limit Out-of-Pocket Costs for Cancer Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the perceptions of health care providers concerning patient and health care provider strategies to limit out-of-pocket costs for cancer care. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 cancer care providers (nurses, social workers, oncologists, surgeons, pharmacists, and dieticians) in Newfoundland and Labrador. RESULTS: Patients try to minimize costs by substituting or rationing medications, choosing radical treatments, lengthening the time between follow-up appointments, choosing inpatient care, and working during treatment to minimize loss of income. Providers respond to the financial concerns of patients by helping them to access financial assistance programs, by changing chemotherapy and supportive drug prescriptions, and by shortening radiation treatment protocols. They admit patients to hospital and arrange follow-up with physicians closer to a patient's home. CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-pocket costs resulting from cancer care are incurred at all phases of treatment and follow-up. These costs are substantial concerns for some patients and their health care providers. Encouraging communication between patients and their providers is needed to identify individuals at risk and to safely modify care plans. Tele-oncology and public drug, medical travel, and leave programs are needed to ensure that patients are better able to afford the costs related to cancer care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".