Dataset Information

Describing financial toxicity among cancer patients in different income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is limited evidence of financial toxicity (FT) among cancer patients from countries of various income levels. Hence, this study aimed to determine the prevalence of objective and subjective FT and their measurements in relation to cancer treatment.

Methods

PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched to find studies that examined FT. There was no limit on the design or setting of the study. Random-effects meta-analysis was utilized to obtain the pooled prevalence of objective FT.

Results

Out of 244 identified studies during the initial screening, only 64 studies were included in this review. The catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) method was often used in the included studies to determine the objective FT. The pooled prevalence of CHE was 47% (95% CI: 24.0-70.0) in middle- and high-income countries, and the highest percentage was noted in low-income countries (74.4%). A total of 30 studies focused on subjective FT, of which 9 used the Comprehensive Score for FT (COST) tool and reported median scores ranging between 17.0 and 31.9.

Conclusion

This study shows that cancer patients from various income-group countries experienced a significant financial burden during their treatment. It is imperative to conduct further studies on interventions and policies that can lower FT caused by cancer treatment.

SUBMITTER: Azzani M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10789858 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Describing financial toxicity among cancer patients in different income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Azzani Meram M Atroosh Wahib Mohammed WM Anbazhagan Deepa D Kumarasamy Vinoth V Abdalla Mona Mohamed Ibrahim MMI

Frontiers in public health 20240102

<h4>Background</h4>There is limited evidence of financial toxicity (FT) among cancer patients from countries of various income levels. Hence, this study aimed to determine the prevalence of objective and subjective FT and their measurements in relation to cancer treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched to find studies that examined FT. There was no limit on the design or setting of the study. Random-effects meta-analysis was utilized to obtain ...[more]

PMID: 38229668

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInfertility affects one in six people globally, with similar prevalence rates across high-income and low- and middle-income countries. Technological advancements, particularly in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART), have improved fertility treatment options. Although access to ART is presumed to be better in high-income countries (HICs), economic factors and eligibility restrictions could still impact effective utilization in these settings. Informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocols (PRISMA-P), this protocol outlines the methodological and analytical approaches to examine the ART costs paid by patients in HICs and the correlation with economic indicators and ART regulatory frameworks.MethodsFollowing the PRISMA approach, we will search for articles indexed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). Grey literature from relevant organizations' virtual databases will also be searched. The review will encompass studies published between 2001 and 2024, with the primary outcome being ART direct medical and direct non-medical costs, while secondary outcomes shall include ART financing arrangements. The review will synthesize ART costs, adjusting them to USD Purchasing Power Parity for cross-country comparison, and correlate findings with GNI per capita and ART financing policies. The Integrated Quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs (ICROMS) tool will be utilized to evaluate the quality of the included studies. We will conduct a meta-analysis if the studies provide sufficient cost-effect size estimates.DiscussionThe review findings will contribute to our understanding of the potential financial burden faced by (disadvantaged) individuals in HICs due to ART costs. Additionally, the review shall highlight the implications that ART financing policies have in enhancing access and affordability, offering valuable insights for healthcare planning and policy formulation. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal article and relevant international conferences.Trial registrationSystematic review registration: PROSPERO number: CRD42023487655.

Project description:ImportanceFinancial toxicity (FT) is the negative impact of cost of care on financial well-being. Patients with breast cancer are at risk for incurring high out-of-pocket costs given the long-term need for multidisciplinary care and expensive treatments.ObjectiveTo quantify the FT rate of patients with breast cancer and identify particularly vulnerable patient populations nationally and internationally.Data sourcesA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Four databases-Embase, PubMed, Global Index Medicus, and Global Health (EBSCO)-were queried from inception to February 2021. Data analysis was performed from March to December 2022.Study selectionA comprehensive database search was performed for full-text, English-language articles reporting FT among patients with breast cancer. Two independent reviewers conducted study screening and selection; 462 articles underwent full-text review.Data extraction and synthesisA standardized data extraction tool was developed and validated by 2 independent authors; study quality was also assessed. Variables assessed included race, income, insurance status, education status, employment, urban or rural status, and cancer stage and treatment. Pooled estimates of FT rates and their 95% CIs were obtained using the random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresFT was the primary outcome and was evaluated using quantitative FT measures, including rate of patients experiencing FT, and qualitative FT measures, including patient-reported outcome measures or patient-reported severity and interviews. The rates of patients in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries who incurred FT according to out-of-pocket cost, income, or patient-reported impact of expenditures during breast cancer diagnosis and treatment were reported as a meta-analysis.ResultsOf the 11 086 articles retrieved, 34 were included in the study. Most studies were from high-income countries (24 studies), and the rest were from low- and middle-income countries (10 studies). The sample size of included studies ranged from 5 to 2445 people. There was significant heterogeneity in the definition of FT. FT rate was pooled from 18 articles. The pooled FT rate was 35.3% (95% CI, 27.3%-44.4%) in high-income countries and 78.8% (95% CI, 60.4%-90.0%) in low- and middle-income countries.Conclusions and relevanceSubstantial FT is associated with breast cancer treatment worldwide. Although the FT rate was higher in low- and middle-income countries, more than 30% of patients in high-income countries also incurred FT. Policies designed to offset the burden of direct medical and nonmedical costs are required to improve the financial health of vulnerable patients with breast cancer.

Project description:Study questionWhat are the direct costs of assisted reproductive technology (ART), and how affordable is it for patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICS)?Summary answerDirect medical costs paid by patients for infertility treatment are significantly higher than annual average income and GDP per capita, pointing to unaffordability and the risk of catastrophic expenditure for those in need.What is known alreadyInfertility treatment is largely inaccessible to many people in LMICs. Our analysis shows that no study in LMICs has previously compared ART medical costs across countries in international dollar terms (US$PPP) or correlated the medical costs with economic indicators, financing mechanisms, and policy regulations. Previous systematic reviews on costs have been limited to high-income countries while those in LMICs have only focussed on descriptive analyses of these costs.Study design size durationGuided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit, PsycINFO, Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and grey literature for studies published in all languages from LMICs between 2001 and 2020.Participants/materials setting methodsThe primary outcome of interest was direct medical costs paid by patients for one ART cycle. To gauge ART affordability, direct medical costs were correlated with the GDP per capita or average income of respective countries. ART regulations and public financing mechanisms were analyzed to provide information on the healthcare contexts in the countries. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Integrated Quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study designs.Main results and the role of chanceOf the 4062 studies identified, 26 studies from 17 countries met the inclusion criteria. There were wide disparities across countries in the direct medical costs paid by patients for ART ranging from USD2109 to USD18 592. Relative ART costs and GDP per capita showed a negative correlation, with the costs in Africa and South-East Asia being on average up to 200% of the GDP per capita. Lower relative costs in the Americas and the Eastern Mediterranean regions were associated with the presence of ART regulations and government financing mechanisms.Limitations reasons for cautionSeveral included studies were not primarily designed to examine the cost of ART and thus lacked comprehensive details of the costs. However, a sensitivity analysis showed that exclusion of studies with below the minimum quality score did not change the conclusions on the outcome of interest.Wider implications of the findingsGovernments in LMICs should devise appropriate ART regulatory policies and implement effective mechanisms for public financing of fertility care to improve equity in access. The findings of this review should inform advocacy for ART regulatory frameworks in LMICs and the integration of infertility treatment as an essential service under universal health coverage.Study funding/competing interestsThis work received funding from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The authors declare no competing interests.Trial registration numberThis review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020199312.

Project description:BackgroundThe chronic nature of noncommunicable diseases (NCD) and costs associated with long-term care can result in catastrophic health expenditure for the patient and their household pushing them deeper into poverty and entrenching inequality in society. As the full financial burden of NCDs is not known, the objective of this study was to explore existing evidence on the financial burden of NCDs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), specifically estimating the cost incurred by patients with NCDs and their households to inform the development of strategies to protect such households from catastrophic expenditure.MethodsThis systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines, PROSPERO: CRD42019141088. Eligible studies published between 1st January 2000 to 7th May 2020 were systematically searched for in three databases: Medline, Embase and Web of Science. A two-step process, comprising of qualitative synthesis proceeded by quantitative (cost) synthesis, was followed. The mean costs are presented in 2018 USD.Findings51 articles were included, out of which 41 were selected for the quantitative cost synthesis. Most of the studies were cross-sectional cost-of-illness studies, of which almost half focused on diabetes and/or conducted in South-East Asia. The average total costs per year to a patient/household in LMICs of COPD, CVD, cancers and diabetes were $7386.71, $6055.99, $3303.81, $1017.05, respectively.ConclusionThis review highlighted major data and methodological gaps when collecting data on costs of NCDs to households along the cascade of care in LMICs. More empirical data on cost of specific NCDs are needed to identify the diseases and contexts where social protection interventions are needed most. More rigorous and standardised methods of data collection and costing for NCDs should be developed to enable comprehensive and comparable evidence of the economic and financial burden of NCDs to patients and households in LMICs. The available evidence on costs reveals a large financial burden imposed on patients and households in seeking and receiving NCD care and emphasizes the need for adequate and reliable social protection interventions to be implemented alongside Universal Health Coverage.

Dataset Information

Describing financial toxicity among cancer patients in different income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Describing financial toxicity among cancer patients in different income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets