The DISCO App is designed to improve, during the interaction, patient active participation and patient-initiated oncologist treatment cost discussions, and, in the short term, patient's treatment cost knowledge, self-efficacy for managing both cost and physician interactions, referrals, perceived financial toxicity (i.e., distress and material hardship); in turn, these will affect longer-term outcomes of financial toxicity and adherence.
This work is based on the core scientific premise - that increasing patient active participation and the frequency and quality of treatment cost discussions will decrease the short- and longer-term burdens of financial toxicity through their influence on self-efficacy for managing treatment cost. The focus is on patient self-efficacy for managing treatment cost because it is expected that improved treatment cost education and patient-oncologist treatment cost discussions prompted by the DISCO App will directly improve the self-efficacy needed for patients to proactively manage treatment costs, thus reducing the material and psychological burden of financial toxicity. The DISCO App is not designed to increase patients' ability to pay or reduce the cost of treatment, but it may benefit patients by increasing: their knowledge of treatment costs, their self-efficacy for managing cost, and the likelihood they receive financial and psychological assistance and support. This research is significant because, if successful, reducing the material and psychological burden of financial toxicity will improve the quality of care and work toward achieving health equity. The DISCO App has already been tested for its feasibility and acceptability. The DISCO App will now be tested for its effectiveness in a diverse population of people with solid tumors treated with IV and oral chemotherapies.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
260
Patients will receive an individually-tailorable cancer treatment cost education and communication intervention delivered on an iPad just prior to meeting with their oncologist.
Patients randomized to this arm will receive usual care.
Patients will receive an individually-tailorable cancer treatment cost education and communication intervention delivered on an iPad just prior to meeting with their oncologist. Then, 2 months later they will receive an intervention booster in the form of an individually-tailored email to remind patients of the contents of the intervention.
Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute
Detroit, Michigan, United States
RECRUITINGSelf-efficacy in patient-physician interactions. An example item from the PEPPI scale: How confident are you in your ability to know what questions to ask your doctor? Data will be aggregated using means and standard deviations.
How efficacious patients feel about communicating with physicians. Scale title: Self-efficacy in patient-physician interactions. Minimum = 1; Maximum = 5; higher is a better outcome.
Time frame: Immediately after the video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Self-efficacy in managing treatment costs An example item from adapted scale: I am confident I can pay for the direct costs of my treatment. Data will be aggregated using means and standard deviations.
How efficacious patients feel about managing their treatment costs. Scale title: Self-efficacy in managing treatment costs. Minimum = 1; Maximum = 5; higher is a better outcome.
Time frame: Immediately after video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Knowledge of types of treatment cost An example item from the original measure: Cancer treatment may cost me in the following ways? Data will be aggregated using frequency counts.
If patients know the types of cost associated with cancer treatment
Time frame: Immediately after video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Perceived financial toxicity; Scale title: Adapted Comprehensive score for financial toxicity (COST) measure.
Anticipated financial harm due to treatment cost. Scale title: Adapted Comprehensive score for financial toxicity (COST) measure. Minimum = 0; Maximum = 4; lower is a better outcome.
Time frame: Immediately after video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Perceived presence of treatment cost discussion
Patient perception that treatment cost discussed with the physician
Time frame: Immediately after video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Patient self-report of level of satisfaction with any treatment cost discussions with physician assessed via an original scale: satisfaction with any treatment cost discussed with the physician that occurred.
Scale title: Satisfaction with any treatment cost discussed with the physician that occurred. Minimum = 1; Maximum = 5; higher is a better outcome.
Time frame: Immediately after video-recorded patient-physician interaction
The observed frequency of a cost discussion assessed via an original coding system. Frequency is assessed as the number of distinct cost discussions that occur in each recorded interaction. Higher is a better outcome.
Observation of the frequency of a cost discussion. Minimum = 0; Maximum = undefined.
Time frame: During the video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Patient-Centered Communication scale. The observed quality of patient-physician communication assessed a validated coding system. Minimum = 1; Maximum =5; higher is a better outcome
Observation of the quality of patient-physician communication.
Time frame: During the video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Referral to social work/financial navigator
If the patient was referred to a social worker or financial navigator. The number of patients who receive a referral to a social worker or a financial navigator.
Time frame: Immediately after video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Self-efficacy in patient-physician interactions. An example item from the PEPPI scale: How confident are you in your ability to know what questions to ask your doctor? Data will be aggregated using means and standard deviations.
How efficacious patients feel about communicating with physicians. Scale title: Self-efficacy in patient-physician interactions. Minimum = 1; Maximum = 5; higher is a better outcome.
Time frame: 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Self-efficacy in managing treatment costs
How efficacious patients feel about managing their treatment costs. Scale title: Self-efficacy in managing treatment costs. Minimum = 1; Maximum = 5; higher is a better outcome. An example item from the adapted scale: I am confident I can pay for the direct costs of my treatment. Data will be aggregated using means and standard deviations.
Time frame: 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Financial toxicity
The experience of financial harm due to treatment cost. Rate of patients who indicate they are experiencing financial burden due to cancer treatment costs.
Time frame: 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Follow up with social work/financial navigator
If the patient followed up with social work/financial navigator if referred. Data will be aggregated using frequency counts.
Time frame: 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Treatment adherence An example item from the Medical Outcomes Study General Adherence measure: I had a hard time doing what the doctor suggested I do for treating my cancer.
If the patient adhered to the recommended treatment
Time frame: 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Treatment-cost related adherence
If the patient was unable to adhere to treatment due to cost
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after video-recorded patient-physician interaction
Clinical appointment adherence. The rate of appointments a patient is scheduled for and attends.
If the patient adhered to clinical appointments
Time frame: 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after video-recorded patient-physician interaction