FINANCIAL TOXICITY AND PATIENT-PROVIDER DISCUSSION ABOUT CANCER-RELATED COST AMONG PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS LIVING IN CANADIAN REMOTE AREA: A DESCRIPTIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Author(s)
Abir El-Haouly, PhD, RN.
Health, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Rouyn-noranda, QC, Canada.
Health, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Rouyn-noranda, QC, Canada.
OBJECTIVES: Although advances in treatment have improved patient survival and quality of life, the economic burden associated with prostate cancer (PC) remains significant. Financial toxicity is now recognized as a significant consequence of cancer. Even in a universal health care system like Canada’s, patients with PC may face substantial expenses, particularly due to medications. In addition to these expenses, patients living in remote areas face the costs of traveling to treatment centers. As a strategy to reduce financial toxicity, clinical practice guidelines recommend that healthcare provider (HP) discuss financial issues with their patients. Despite the growing importance of the issue of financial toxicity, knowledge regarding its magnitude among Canadians with PC living in remote areas remains limited. Furthermore, knowledge about holding financial discussions between these patients and their HP remains limited. This study aimed to describe the financial toxicity faced by patients with PC living in remote regions of Canada and the financial discussions held between this population and their HP.
METHODS: Between January and June 2024, 76 patients with PC receiving care at a health center in a remote region of Quebec, Canada, participated in the study by completing a questionnaire sent by mail.
RESULTS: Participants had an average financial toxicity score of 20 out of 44, indicating a moderate but clinically significant level of financial toxicity (COST-Version 2). For a majority (64.5%), it was important to discuss their cancer costs treatment with the HP. However, a majority had never had such a discussion with a physician (80.3%) or a nurse (68%). Of those who had a financial discussion, only 9.2% discussed their financial concerns.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering these results, we recommend that financial discussions with patients not be overlooked. The implementation of tools to measure the financial toxicity of PC makes it possible to identify at-risk patients and connect them with support resources.
METHODS: Between January and June 2024, 76 patients with PC receiving care at a health center in a remote region of Quebec, Canada, participated in the study by completing a questionnaire sent by mail.
RESULTS: Participants had an average financial toxicity score of 20 out of 44, indicating a moderate but clinically significant level of financial toxicity (COST-Version 2). For a majority (64.5%), it was important to discuss their cancer costs treatment with the HP. However, a majority had never had such a discussion with a physician (80.3%) or a nurse (68%). Of those who had a financial discussion, only 9.2% discussed their financial concerns.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering these results, we recommend that financial discussions with patients not be overlooked. The implementation of tools to measure the financial toxicity of PC makes it possible to identify at-risk patients and connect them with support resources.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
PCR126
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Epidemiology & Public Health, Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Disease
Oncology, Urinary/Kidney Disorders