Mixed-Methods Study on the Responsiveness of the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity Among People With Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity is a contributor to the psychosocial burden of cancer care. There is no consensus measure of financial toxicity; however, recent studies have adopted the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST). Despite its growing popularity, data on the responsiveness to change of the COST instrument are lacking. To address this gap in the literature, we performed a sequential mixed-methods study of people with multiple myeloma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the quantitative phase of the study, we collected COST scores at two time points approximately 8 weeks apart from 72 patients. In the qualitative phase, we conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of 12 patients who reported the largest changes in scores. The qualitative data were analyzed using a deductive coding scheme developed using the Framework Method in the context of a commonly cited conceptual model of financial toxicity. RESULTS: The median absolute change in COST scores was four points (IQR, 2-6). Only 13% of the sample had the same COST scores at both assessments; 38% had an improved score and 50% had a worsened score. Only, seven of the 12 patients (58%) interviewed reported changes to one or more of the constructs in the conceptual model of financial toxicity. Most commonly, changes to out-of-pocket medical costs were reported (5/12). Changes to nonmedical expenses (n = 2) and subjective financial distress without changes to objective financial burden (n = 2) were also reported. CONCLUSION: Additional research is needed to explicate changes in COST scores over time.

Duke Scholars

Author Theresa Marie Coles Population Health Sciences