Material, behavioral, and psychological financial hardship among survivors of childhood cancer in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical financial burden includes material, behavioral, and psychological hardship and has been underinvestigated among adult survivors of childhood cancer. METHODS: A survey from 698 survivors and 210 siblings from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study was analyzed. The intensity of financial hardship was estimated across 3 domains: 1) material, including conditions that arise from medical expenses; 2) behavioral, including coping behaviors to manage medical expenses; and 3) psychological hardship resulting from worries about medical expenses and insurance, as measured by the number of instances of each type of financial hardship (0, 1-2, and ≥3 instances). Multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to examine the clinical and sociodemographic predictors of experiencing financial hardship (0-2 vs ≥3 instances). RESULTS: The intensity of financial hardship did not significantly differ between survivors and siblings. Survivors reported more instances of material hardship than siblings (1-2 instances: 27.2% of survivors vs 22.6% of siblings; ≥3 instances: 15.9% of survivors vs 11.4% siblings; overall P = .03). In multivariable regressions, insurance was protective against all domains of financial hardship (behavioral odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06-0.22; material OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.71; psychological OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.05-0.21). Survivors who were older at diagnosis, female, and with chronic health conditions generally had higher levels of hardship. Brain radiation and alkylating agents were associated with higher levels of hardship. CONCLUSIONS: Material, behavioral, and psychological financial burden among survivors of childhood cancer is common.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".