Out-of-Pocket Costs and Perceived Financial Burden Associated with Prostate Cancer Treatment in a Quebec Remote Area: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In publicly funded healthcare systems, patients do not pay for medical visits but can experience costs stemming from travel or over-the-counter drugs. We lack information about the extent of this burden in Canadian remote regions. This study aimed to: (1) describe prostate cancer-related out-of-pocket costs and perceived financial burden, and (2) identify factors associated with such a perceived burden among prostate cancer patients living in a remote region of the province of Quebec (Canada). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 171 prostate cancer patients who consulted at the outpatient clinic of the Centre Hospitalier de Rouyn-Noranda. Results: The majority of patients (83%) had incurred out-of-pocket costs for their cancer care. The mean total cost incurred in the last three months was $517 and 22.3% reported a moderate, considerable or unsustainable burden. Multivariable analysis revealed that having incurred higher cancer-related out-of-pocket costs (OR: 1.001; 95%CI: 1.001–1.002) private drug insurance (vs. public, OR: 5.23; 95%CI: 1.13–24.17) was associated with a greater perceived financial burden. Having better physical health-related quality of life (OR: 0.95; 95%CI: 0.913–0.997), a university education (vs. elementary/high school level, OR: 0.03; 95%CI: 0.00–0.79), and an income between $40,000 and $79,999 (vs. ≤ $39,999, OR: 0.15; 95%CI: 0.03–0.69) were associated with a lower perceived burden. Conclusion: Prostate cancer patients incur out-of-pocket costs even if they were diagnosed many years ago and the perceived burden is significant. Greater attention should be paid to the development of services to help patients manage this burden.
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".