Lay healthcare worker financial toxicity intervention: a pilot financial toxicity screening and referral program. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Parikh, D. A., Rodriguez, G. M., Ragavan, M., Kerr, E., Asuncion, M. K., Hansen, J., Srinivas, S., Fan, A. C., Shah, S., Patel, M. I. 2024; 32 (3): 161

Abstract

Financial toxicity is a source of significant distress for patients with urologic cancers, yet few studies have addressed financial burden in this patient population.We developed a financial toxicity screening program using a lay health worker (LHW) and social worker (SW) to assess and mitigate financial toxicity in a single academic medical clinic. As part of a quality improvement project, the LHW screened all newly diagnosed patients with advanced stages of prostate, kidney, or urothelial cancer for financial burden using three COST tool questions and referred patients who had significant financial burden to an SW who provided personalized recommendations. The primary outcome was feasibility defined as 80% of patients with financial burden completing the SW consult. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, change in COST Tool responses, and qualitative assessment of financial resources utilized.The LHW screened a total of 185 patients for financial toxicity; 82% (n = 152) were male, 65% (n = 120) White, and 75% (n = 139) reported annual household income >$100,000 US Dollars; 60% (n = 114) had prostate cancer. A total of 18 (9.7%) participants screened positive for significant financial burden and were referred to the SW for consultation. All participants (100%) completed and reported satisfaction with the SW consultation and had 0.83 mean lower scores on the COST Tool post-intervention assessment compared to pre-intervention (95% confidence interval [0.26, 1.41]).This multidisciplinary financial toxicity intervention using an LHW and SW was feasible, acceptable, and associated with reduced financial burden among patients with advanced stages of urologic cancers. Future work should evaluate the effect of this intervention among cancer patients in diverse settings.

View details for DOI 10.1007/s00520-024-08357-x

View details for PubMedID 38366165

View details for PubMedCentralID 6494243