This research is to investigate the level of economic toxicity and its associated influencing factors among lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, and to provide guidance for the development of an economic toxicity screening tool. This study employed a cross-sectional design, recruiting 132 lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy from three tertiary hospitals in Jingzhou City using convenience sampling. Data were collected on general information, economic toxicity levels, psychological resilience, and bidirectional social support of patients. Univariate analysis, correlation analysis, and linear regression analysis were conducted. The results indicated that economic toxicity is prevalent among lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, with significant influencing factors including age, monthly family income, educational level, and payment method for medical expenses. Healthcare providers should develop an economic toxicity screening tool to identify early signs of economic toxicity in lung cancer patients and implement personalized interventions for high-risk patients facing substantial economic pressure, thereby reducing the overall level of economic toxicity.
References
[1]
Nasim, F., Sabath, B.F. and Eapen, G.A. (2019) Lung Cancer. Medical Clinics of NorthAmerica, 103, 463-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2018.12.006
[2]
Bade, B.C. and Dela Cruz, C.S. (2020) Lung Cancer 2020. Clinics in Chest Medicine, 41, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccm.2019.10.001
[3]
Wu, F., Wang, L. and Zhou, C. (2020) Lung Cancer in China: Current and Prospect. Current Opinion in Oncology, 33, 40-46. https://doi.org/10.1097/cco.0000000000000703
[4]
Jones, G.S. and Baldwin, D.R. (2018) Recent Advances in the Management of Lung Cancer. Clinical Medicine, 18, S41-S46. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.18-2-s41
[5]
Panattoni, N., Di Simone, E., Renzi, E., Di Carlo, F., Fabbian, F., Di Muzio, M., et al. (2024) A Phenomenological Approach to Financial Toxicity: The-Economic-Side Effect of Cancer. Current Oncology, 31, 6085-6095. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100454
[6]
Carrera, P.M., Kantarjian, H.M. and Blinder, V.S. (2018) The Financial Burden and Distress of Patients with Cancer: Understanding and Stepping-Up Action on the Financial Toxicity of Cancer Treatment. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68, 153-165. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21443
[7]
Zafar, S.Y. and Abernethy, A.P. (2013) Financial Toxicity, Part I: A New Name for a Growing Problem. Oncology (Williston Park), 27, 80-81.
[8]
de Souza, J.A., Yap, B.J., Hlubocky, F.J., Wroblewski, K., Ratain, M.J., Cella, D., et al. (2014) The Development of a Financial Toxicity Patient-Reported Outcome in Cancer: The COST Measure. Cancer, 120, 3245-3253. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28814
[9]
Yu, H.H., Bi, X. and Liu, Y.Y. (2017) Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Financial Toxicity Scale. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, 38, 1-3.
[10]
Hedayatfar, A., Hashemi, H., Asgari, S. and Chee, S. (2014) Comparison of Efficacy and Ocular Surface Toxicity of Topical Preservative-Free Methylprednisolone and Preserved Prednisolone in the Treatment of Acute Anterior Uveitis. Cornea, 33, 366-372. https://doi.org/10.1097/ico.0000000000000039
[11]
Zhou, J., Zhang, J.-H., Li, P.-W., et al. (2019) Research Progress on the Economic Toxicity of Malignant Tumor Treatment. TodayPharmacy, 29, 69-72.
[12]
Obst, P., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Krosch, D.J. and Rogers, E.J. (2019) Reliability and Validity of the Brief 2-Way Social Support Scale: An Investigation of Social Support in Promoting Older Adult Well-Being. Sage Open Medicine, 7, Article 2106908020. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312119836020
[13]
Cui, Y., Zhao, Q.P., Zhao, T., et al. (2022) Chinese Version of Simplified Two-Way Social Support Scale and Its Reliability and Validity Test in Community Elderly People. Journal of Nursing, 37, 94-97.
[14]
Connor, K.M. and Davidson, J.R.T. (2003) Development of a New Resilience Scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113
