Financial burden in advanced cancer: colorectal cancer data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To characterise patient-reported financial burden of living with advanced colorectal cancer in Alberta, Canada, as part of a larger prospective cohort study characterising the experiences of people living with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients were recruited from Alberta's tertiary cancer centres between January 2018 and July 2020. Enrolled participants were invited to complete the Patient Self-Administered Financial Effects (P-SAFE) questionnaire at 1 month post-enrolment and every 6 months thereafter, until death or end of study (December 2020). The questionnaire captured consumption expenditure, out-of-pocket costs, including travel and parking costs, dissaving strategies and productivity impacts of patients and caregivers over the past 28 days. RESULTS: Of 87 eligible patients, 56 completed at least one P-SAFE survey. They reported an average of $C401 in out-of-pocket costs (eg, medications, vitamins/supplements, devices) over the past 28 days (median $C84, range $C0-$C4475), plus an average of $C249 per 28 days for travel and parking (median $C80, range $C0-$C2680). Patients reported an average of two trips per month to their cancer centre, travelling anywhere from 6 to 500 km one way. 88% of employed patients and 88% of employed caregivers reported impacts on employment; 34% of patients made significant asset decisions (eg, withdrew savings, downsized home). 30% of patients reported high perceived financial burden (ie, 'somewhat', 'large' or 'worst possible' financial difficulty) in the past month. CONCLUSIONS: This cross-sectional descriptive analysis suggests that the financial burden of advanced colorectal cancer is high, as evidenced by high out-of-pocket costs, impacts on employment and self-reported financial difficulty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".