MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298124740 · doi:10.1200/jco.22.00572

Financial Hardship in Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer in the Era After Implementation of the Affordable Care Act: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study

2022· article· en· W4298124740 on OpenAlexaff
Paul C. Nathan, I‐Chan Huang, Yan Chen, Tara O. Henderson, Elyse R. Park, Anne C. Kirchhoff, Leslie L. Robison, Kevin R. Krull, Wendy M. Leisenring, Gregory T. Armstrong, Rena M. Conti, Yutaka Yasui, K. Robin Yabroff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineChildhood cancerWorryFinanceCancerDemographyGerontologyFamily medicinePsychiatryInternal medicineAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE To estimate the prevalence of financial hardship among adult survivors of childhood cancer compared with siblings and identify sociodemographic, cancer diagnosis, and treatment correlates of hardship among survivors in the era after implementation of the Affordable Care Act. METHODS A total of 3,555 long-term (≥ 5 years) survivors of childhood cancer and 956 siblings who completed a survey administered in 2017-2019 were identified from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Financial hardship was measured by 21 survey items derived from US national surveys that had been previously cognitively tested and fielded. Principal component analysis (PCA) identified domains of hardship. Multiple linear regression examined the association of standardized domain scores (ie, scores divided by standard deviation) with cancer and treatment history and sociodemographic characteristics among survivors. RESULTS Survivors were more likely than siblings to report hardship in ≥ 1 item (63.4% v 53.7%, P < .001). They were more likely to report being sent to debt collection (29.9% v 22.3%), problems paying medical bills (20.7% v 12.8%), foregoing needed medical care (14.1% v 7.8%), and worry/stress about paying their rent/mortgage (33.6% v 23.2%) or having enough money to buy nutritious meals (26.8% v 15.5%); all P < .001. Survivors reported greater hardship than siblings in all three domains identified by principal component analysis: behavioral hardship (mean standardized domain score 0.51 v 0.35), material hardship/financial sacrifices (0.64 v 0.46), and psychological hardship (0.69 v 0.44), all P < .001. Sociodemographic (eg, 2 anthracycline chemotherapy, or chest radiation) were statistically significantly associated with increased hardship. CONCLUSION Survivors of childhood cancer were more likely to experience financial hardship than siblings. Correlates of hardship can inform survivorship care guidelines and intervention strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207