Financial toxicity, symptom burden, illness perceptions, and communication confidence in cancer clinical trial participants.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6526 Background: Cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants are at high risk for experiencing adverse effects from financial toxicity, yet this remains understudied in the CCT population. We sought to describe associations among patient-reported financial toxicity (financial burden [FB] and trial cost concerns), physical and psychological symptoms, illness perceptions, and communication confidence in CCT participants. Methods: From 7/2015-7/2017, we prospectively enrolled CCT participants who expressed interest in financial assistance and a group of patients matched by age, sex, cancer type, specific trial, and trial phase. We assessed FB (burdened by costs of cancer care), trial cost concerns (worried about affording medical costs of a CCT), physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS]) and psychological (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]) symptoms, illness perceptions (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire [BIPQ]), and communication confidence (Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions [PEPPI]). We used regression models to explore sociodemographic associations with FB and trial cost concerns, and to examine associations of FB and trial cost concerns with patients’ symptom burden, illness perceptions, and communication confidence, adjusting for age, sex, race, performance status, marital status, and metastatic status. Results: Of 198 patients enrolled, 112 (56.6%) reported FB and 82 (41.4%) had trial cost concerns. Patients with FB were younger (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.98) and had lower incomes ( < $100,000, OR 4.61, 95% CI 2.35-9.01). Patients reporting trial cost concerns also had lower incomes ( < $100,000, OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.45-5.29). On adjusted analyses, patients with FB had higher ESAS total (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.05), ESAS physical (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.07), PHQ-4 depression (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.22-1.94), and PHQ-4 anxiety (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.08-1.55) scores, as well as more negative illness perceptions (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07), but no significant difference in communication confidence (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93-1.05). Patients reporting trial cost concerns had higher ESAS total (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05), ESAS physical (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.06), PHQ-4 depression (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10-1.65), and PHQ-4 anxiety (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.07-1.51) scores, as well as more negative illness perceptions (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.10), and lower communication confidence (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.99). Conclusions: In this study of CCT participants, younger patients with lower incomes were most vulnerable to financial toxicity. Financial toxicity was associated with greater symptom burden, more negative illness perceptions, and lower communication confidence, which underscores the importance of addressing these issues when seeking to alleviate the adverse effects of financial toxicity in CCT participants.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".