Dataset Information

Understanding the financial cost of cancer clinical trial participation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Though financial hardship is a well-documented adverse effect of standard-of-care cancer treatment, little is known about out-of-pocket costs and their impact on patients participating in cancer clinical trials. This study explored the financial effects of cancer clinical trial participation.

Methods

This cross-sectional analysis used survey data collected in December 2022 and May 2023 from individuals with cancer previously served by Patient Advocate Foundation, a nonprofit organization providing social needs navigation and financial assistance to US adults with a chronic illness. Surveys included questions on cancer clinical trial participation, trial-related financial hardship, and sociodemographic data. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted using Cramer's V to estimate the in-sample magnitude of association. Associations between trial-related financial hardship and sociodemographics were estimated using adjusted relative risks (aRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) from modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors.

Results

Of 650 survey respondents, 18% (N = 118) reported ever participating in a cancer clinical trial. Of those, 47% (n = 55) reported financial hardship as a result of their trial participation. Respondents reporting trial-related financial hardship were more often unemployed or disabled (58% vs. 43%; V = 0.15), Medicare enrolled (53% vs. 40%; V = 0.15), and traveled >1 h to their cancer provider (45% vs. 17%; V = 0.33) compared to respondents reporting no hardship. Respondents who experienced trial-related financial hardship most often reported expenses from travel (reported by 71% of respondents), medical bills (58%), dining out (40%), or housing needs (40%). Modeling results indicated that respondents traveling >1 h vs. ≤30 min to their cancer provider had a 2.2× higher risk of financial hardship, even after adjusting for respondent race, income, employment, and insurance status (aRR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.8). Most respondents (53%) reported needing $200-$1000 per month to compensate for trial-related expenses. Over half (51%) of respondents reported less willingness to participate in future clinical trials due to incurred financial hardship. Notably, of patients who did not participate in a cancer clinical trial (n = 532), 13% declined participation due to cost.

Conclusion

Cancer clinical trial-related financial hardship, most often stemming from travel expenses, affected almost half of trial-enrolled patients. Interventions are needed to reduce adverse financial participation effects and potentially improve cancer clinical trial participation.

SUBMITTER: Williams CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11022148 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Understanding the financial cost of cancer clinical trial participation.

Williams Courtney P CP Deng Luqin L Caston Nicole E NE Gallagher Kathleen K Angove Rebekah R Pisu Maria M Azuero Andres A Arend Rebecca R Rocque Gabrielle B GB

Cancer medicine 20240401 8

<h4>Background</h4>Though financial hardship is a well-documented adverse effect of standard-of-care cancer treatment, little is known about out-of-pocket costs and their impact on patients participating in cancer clinical trials. This study explored the financial effects of cancer clinical trial participation.<h4>Methods</h4>This cross-sectional analysis used survey data collected in December 2022 and May 2023 from individuals with cancer previously served by Patient Advocate Foundation, a nonp ...[more]

PMID: 38629264

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe decision to enroll in a clinical trial is complex given the uncertain risks and benefits of new approaches. Many patients also have financial concerns. We sought to characterize the association between financial concerns and the quality of decision making about clinical trials.MethodsWe conducted a secondary data analysis of a randomized trial of a Web-based educational tool (Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials) designed to improve the preparation of patients with cancer for making decisions about clinical trial enrollment. Patients completed a baseline questionnaire that included three questions related to financial concerns (five-point Likert scales): "How much of a burden on you is the cost of your medical care?," "I'm afraid that my health insurance won't pay for a clinical trial," and "I'm worried that I wouldn't be able to afford the costs of treatment on a clinical trial." Results were summed, with higher scores indicating greater concerns. We used multiple linear regressions to measure the association between concerns and self-reported measures of self-efficacy, preparation for decision making, distress, and decisional conflict in separate models, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsOne thousand two hundred eleven patients completed at least one financial concern question. Of these, 27% were 65 years or older, 58% were female, and 24% had a high school education or less. Greater financial concern was associated with lower self-efficacy and preparation for decision making, as well as with greater decisional conflict and distress, even after adjustment for age, race, sex, education, employment, and hospital location (P < .001 for all models).ConclusionFinancial concerns are associated with several psychological constructs that may negatively influence decision quality regarding clinical trials. Greater attention to patients' financial needs and concerns may reduce distress and improve patient decision making.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to examine the efficacy of financial incentives to increase Medicaid patient participation in and completion of cardiac rehabilitation (CR).BackgroundParticipation in CR reduces morbidity, mortality, and hospitalizations while improving quality of life. Lower-socioeconomic status (SES) patients are much less likely to attend and complete CR, despite being at increased risk for recurrent cardiovascular events.MethodsA total of 130 individuals enrolled in Medicaid with a CR-qualifying cardiac event were randomized 1:1 to receive financial incentives on an escalating schedule ($4 to $50) for completing CR sessions or to receive usual care. Primary outcomes were CR participation (number of sessions completed) and completion (≥30 sessions completed). Secondary outcomes included changes in sociocognitive measurements (depressive/anxious symptoms, executive function), body composition (waist circumference, body mass index), fitness (peak VO2) over 4 months, and combined number of hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) contacts over 1 year.ResultsPatients randomized to the incentive condition completed more sessions (22.4 vs. 14.7, respectively; p = 0.013) and were almost twice as likely to complete CR (55.4% vs. 29.2%, respectively; p = 0.002) as controls. Incentivized patients were also more likely to experience improvements in executive function (p < 0.001), although there were no significant effects on other secondary outcomes. Patients who completed ≥30 sessions had 47% fewer combined hospitalizations and ED visits (p = 0.014), as reflected by a nonsignificant trend by study condition with 39% fewer hospital contacts in the incentive condition group (p = 0.079).ConclusionsFinancial incentives improve CR participation among lower-SES patients following a cardiac event. Increasing participation among lower-SES patients in CR is critical for positive longer-term health outcomes. (Increasing Cardiac Rehabilitation Participation Among Medicaid Enrollees; NCT02172820).

Project description:ImportanceThe American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Friends of Cancer Research, and the US Food and Drug Administration recently recommended modernizing criteria related to comorbidities routinely used to exclude patients from cancer clinical trials. The goal was to design clinical trial eligibility such that trial results better reflect real-world cancer patient populations, to improve clinical trial participation, and to increase patient access to new treatments in trials. Yet despite the assumed influence of comorbidities on trial participation, the relationship between patients' comorbidity profile at diagnosis and trial participation has not been explicitly examined using patient-level data.ObjectivesTo investigate the association between comorbidities, clinical trial decision-making, and clinical trial participation; and to estimate the potential impact of reducing comorbidity exclusion criteria on trial participation, to provide a benchmark for changing criteria.Design, setting, and participantsA national survey was embedded within a web-based cancer treatment-decision tool accessible on multiple cancer-oriented websites. Participants must have received a diagnosis of breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer. In total, 5499 surveyed patients who made a treatment decision within the past 3 months were analyzed using logistic regression analysis and simulations.ExposuresCancer diagnosis and 1 or more of 18 comorbidities.Main outcomes and measuresPatient discussion of a clinical trial with their physician (yes vs no); if a trial was discussed, the offer of trial participation (yes vs no); and, if trial participation was offered, trial participation (yes vs no).ResultsOf the 5499 patients who participated in the survey, 3420 (62.6%) were women and 2079 (37.8%) were men (mean [SD] age, 56.63 [10.05] years). Most patients (65.6%; n = 3610) had 1 or more comorbidities. The most common comorbid condition was hypertension (35.0%; n = 1924). Compared with the absence of comorbidities, the presence of 1 or more comorbidities was associated with a decreased risk of trial discussions (44.1% vs 37.2%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.97; P = .02), trial offers (21.7% vs 15.7%; OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96; P = .02), and trial participation (11.3% vs 7.8%; OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94; P = .01). The removal of the ASCO-recommended comorbidity restrictions could generate up to 6317 additional patient trial registrations every year.Conclusions and relevanceIndependent of sociodemographic variables, the presence of comorbidities is adversely associated with trial discussions, trial offers, and trial participation itself. Updating trial eligibility criteria could provide an opportunity for several thousand more patients with well-managed comorbidities to participate in clinical trials each year.

Project description:ObjectivesEvaluate the experiences and perceptions of patients participating in a simulated clinical trial and identify ways to enhance future patient-centric trial designs.DesignInternational, multicentre, non-interventional, virtual clinical trial visits with patient debriefs and advisory boards.SettingVirtual clinic visits and accompanying advisory boards.ParticipantsNine patients with palmoplantar pustulosis for simulated trial visits; 14 patients and patient representatives for advisory boards.Main outcome measuresQualitative responses to trial documentation, visit schedule and logistics, and trial design were collected during patient debriefs. Results were discussed at two virtual advisory board meetings.ResultsPatients identified key barriers to participation and potential difficulties encountered when attending trial visits and completing assessments. They also proposed recommendations to overcome these challenges. Patients recognised the need for comprehensive informed consent forms, but recommended use of non-technical language, brevity and additional support to aid understanding. Other trial documentations should be relevant to the disease and include known efficacy and safety of the study drug. Patients were concerned about receiving placebo, stopping existing medications and being unable to receive the study drug after trial completion; therefore, patients and physicians recommended an open-label extension following trial completion. Trial visits were too numerous (n=20) and too long (3-4 hours each); patients recommended improvements to the design to make best use of their time and reduce unnecessary waiting. They also requested financial and logistical support. Patients expressed a desire for study outcomes that matter to them, related to their ability to undertake normal daily activities and not be a burden to others.ConclusionsSimulated trials are an innovative method for assessing trial design and acceptance from a patient-centric perspective, enabling specific improvements to be made prior to trial initiation. Incorporation of recommendations from simulated trials could enhance trial recruitment and retention, and optimise trial outcomes and data quality.

Dataset Information

Understanding the financial cost of cancer clinical trial participation.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Understanding the financial cost of cancer clinical trial participation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets