The COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity in China: Validation and Responsiveness

Abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Psychometric properties of self-reported financial toxicity measures in cancer survivors: a systematic review

“…After duplications were removed, a total of 11 731 articles were retained, 11 669 articles were deleted after reading the title and abstract, and 39 were deleted after full-text reading. Finally, a total of 23 articles (21 PROMs) were eligible for inclusion in this study 12 14 16 23–42…”

“…All included studies were published from 2005 to 2022. Eight studies were conducted in the USA,12 14 23 27 30 37 39 41 four in the UK,16 29 35 38 two in Canada31 36 and two in China (mainland and Hong Kong),25 39 India26 34 and Italy 33 42. One study was conducted in 12 countries in Europe and North America 22 23.…”

“…Among the 21 PROMs, 7 were FT-related domains of quality of life PROMs and 14 were independent PROMs focusing on FT. All PROMs were validated in cancer survivors. Fifteen PROMs were in English,12 14 16 23 25–31 35 37 38 40–42 and two were in Chinese 24 39. Other languages included French,36 Portuguese,32 Italian,33 42 Hindi25 26 and Persian 34.…”

Financial toxicity and psychological distress in adults with cancer: A treatment-based analysis

“… 25 , 26 Our team translated and adapted the Chinese version with high reliability (α ​= ​0.85) among patients with cancer. 27 Briefly, the COST measure is an 11-item measure of financial toxicity examining one financial item, two resource items, and eight affect items. The patients were asked to respond on a five-point Likert scale, from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much).…”

Prevalence and risk factors of self-reported financial toxicity in cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Several instruments have been developed, validated, and intended for self-reported nancial toxicity in cancer patients: Breast Cancer Finances Survey Inventory(BCFS) [12][13] , Socioeconomic Wellbeing scale(SWS) 14 , the InCharge Financial Distress/Financial Well-Being Scale(InCharge/FWS) 15 , the Financial Distress Questionnaire(FDQ) 16 , Financial Index of Toxicity(FIT) 17 , and the Comprehensive Score for nancial Toxicity (COST) [18][19] . Among all measures, the COST tools was the most commonly used survey tools and was developed by de Souza 18 to meet the nancial toxicity investigations of cancer patients in the United States, which has been veri ed in many countries around the world, including China 20 , India 21 , Italy 22 , Australia 23 , Japan 24 , etc., and has achieved good reliability and validity.Based on differences in health related quality of life(HRQoL), analogous to the NCI-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, the COST-PROM grading system was developed by de Souza with 4 FT grades (G) 25 : Grade0, no FT, COST score ≥ 26 ; Grade1, mild FT:COST score ≥ 14-26; Grade2, moderate FT: score > 0-14; and Grade3, severe FT: COST score = 0.…”