Onkologija (Jun 2024)

Assessment of financial burden in cancer patients in Slovenia

  • Marjeta Skubic,
  • Katja Vöröš,
  • Andraž Perhavec,
  • Mojca Bavdaž,
  • Petra Došenović Bonča,
  • Tjaša Redek,
  • Ivica Ratoša,
  • Helena Barbara Zobec Logar

DOI
https://doi.org/10.25670/oi2024-001on
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 28, no. 1

Abstract

Read online

Background: This study aims to define the financial burden experienced by Slovenian cancer patients, including both objective financial consequences and subjective financial worries resulting from their disease and treatment. Additionally, we investigate the impact of financial toxicity (FT) on quality of life (QoL). Prior to this study, no research had been conducted on this topic in Slovenia. Aim: The objective of this study was to evaluate the financial burden experienced by cancer patients in Slovenia, its impact on their QoL, and to test the effectiveness of existing tools for assessing FT and QoL. Methods: A survey methodology was employed to measure FT. We developed our own questionnaire to assess FT, and the internationally validated FACIT-COST and EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires were used. The study was prospective and cross-sectional and was held at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana from June to October 2023. Results: We analysed 590 valid surveys. Based on the FACIT- -COST questionnaire, we found that the majority of surveyed patients (53.7%) had no FT, and 42.9% of surveyed patients mostly had mild to moderate FT. The low FT among Slovenian cancer patients was also confirmed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and our own questionnaire. The majority of patients (85.1%) estimated that they did not incur any major costs due to their disease and treatment. Based on the FACIT-COST and the EORTC QLQ-C30 indicator for financial burden, we found that the risk groups for increased FT were mainly patients with a lower net household income (p ≤ 0.001), younger patients (p < 0.001), breast cancer patients (p = 0.016), working patients (p < 0.001) and patients undergoing active oncological treatment (p = 0.039). In our own questionnaire, a lower level of education (p ≤ 0.001), a rural environment (p = 0.033) and the type of health insurance (p = 0.006) also proved to be important for FT. The effect of religion on FT is not associated with higher FT based on our own questionnaire, as shown by the FACIT-COST and EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires. We also confirmed the effect of lower income on poorer QoL. Other parameters influencing QoL are: a very low or very high level of education, head and neck cancer and treatment activity. Conclusions: In Slovenia, the majority of cancer patients do not suffer from FT, and 42.9% have mild to moderate FT. FT is statistically significantly associated with income level, age, type of cancer, employment status, oncological treatment activity, education level, rural environment and type of health insurance. Higher FT is associated with poorer QoL. It is also associated with income level, education level, cancer type and oncological treatment activity.

Keywords