MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048641349 · doi:10.1002/pon.5516

The psychosocial cost burden of cancer: A systematic literature review

2020· review· en· W3048641349 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Beverley M. Essue, Nicolas Iragorri, Natalie Fitzgerald, Claire de Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycho-Oncology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsCanadian Partnership Against CancerUniversity of Toronto
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsPsychosocialQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineDistressIndirect costsClinical psychologyGerontologyPsychiatryNursingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Psychosocial costs, or quality of life costs, account for psychological distress, pain, suffering and other negative experiences associated with cancer. They contribute to the overall economic burden of cancer that patients experience. But this category of costs remains poorly understood. This hinders opportunities to make the best cancer control policy decisions. This study explored the psychosocial cost burden associated with cancer, how studies measure psychosocial costs and the impact of this burden. METHODS: A systematic literature review of academic and grey literature published from 2008 to 2018 was conducted by searching electronic databases, guided by the Institute of Medicine's conceptualization of psychosocial burden. Results were analyzed using a narrative synthesis and a weighted proportion of populations affected was calculated. Study quality was assessed using the Ottawa-Newcastle instrument. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were included. There was variation in how psychosocial costs were conceptualized and an inconsistent approach to measurement. Most studies measured social dimensions and focused on the financial consequences of paying for care. Fewer studies assessed costs associated with the other domains of this burden, including psychological, physical, and spiritual dimensions. Fourty-four percent of cancer populations studied were impacted by psychosocial costs and this varied by disease site (38%-71%). Two studies monetized the psychosocial cost burden, estimating a lifetime cost per case ranging from CAD$427753 to CAD$528769. Studies were of varying quality; 60% of cross-sectional studies had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Consistency in approach to measurement would help to elevate this issue for researchers and decision makers. At two-thirds of the total economic burden of cancer, economic evaluations should account for psychosocial costs to better inform decision-making. More support is needed to address the psychosocial cost burden faced by patients and their families.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0170.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsycho-OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207