Out-of-Pocket Costs for Accessing Adjuvant Radiotherapy Among Canadian Women With Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients with breast cancer incur out-of-pocket costs when they receive adjuvant radiation. These treatments are administered in dedicated centers on a daily basis over 4 to 5 weeks. We assessed the extent of out-of-pocket costs to access radiotherapy and identified women at risk of experiencing higher costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study was conducted among 800 women from eight Quebec hospitals (participation, 86%), of whom 693 women received adjuvant radiotherapy. Costs to access treatment (transportation, parking, lodging, and meals) were estimated on the basis of information collected by telephone interviews. Generalized linear models were used to identify women at risk of having higher costs. RESULTS: Mean and median total costs (including financial aid received) to access radiotherapy were 445 Canadian dollars (Can$; standard deviation, Can$407) and Can$311, respectively. Women who lived at home but far from the radiotherapy center had the highest risk of experiencing weekly costs of at least Can$122 (highest quartile; prevalence ratio [PR], 5.8; 95% CI, 4.7 to 7.1) followed by women who lived away from home and farther from the center (PR, 4.5; 95% CI, 3.4 to 6.0) and by women who lived away from home and closer to the center (PR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.5). When women stayed at a cancer lodge during treatment, costs were reduced by 80%. CONCLUSION: Considered in and of themselves, out-of-pocket costs for access to radiotherapy appeared relatively modest. Financial assistance initiatives for women who lived away from home during treatments contributed to a substantial reduction of access costs. These efforts should be maintained, but financial assistance should also target patients with cancer who live at home during treatments but have to travel relatively long distances on a daily basis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".