Screening and referral program to proactively identify financial hardship in adult patients with cancer and connect those at-risk with education, counseling, and resources. Patients with cancer will be screened as part of routine care and referred to available resources at their institution, following the referral processes developed and mapped in Aim 1.
In Aim 1, we will interview up to 30 clinical leaders and front-line staff across the two healthcare systems and community-based practices to understand workflows and opportunities for I-ACCESS integration. Assessment constructs will focus on understanding structural characteristics (including information technology infrastructure), available resources, culture, compatibility, relational connections, communications, and access to knowledge. These data will inform the creation of tailored process maps to outline processes and procedures to prepare each site for I-ACCESS implementation and elucidate when, how, and by whom I-ACCESS screening should be done. In Aim 2, we will implement I-ACCESS as part of routine clinical practice for eight months at each site. Using a pre-/post-approach, we will examine whether I-ACCESS screening increases the number of financial counseling and oncology social work referrals (primary outcome). We will also examine counseling dispositions, receipt of services among those referred to financial support, and the predictive accuracy of the screening tool (secondary outcomes). In Aim 3, we will analyze approximately 225 patient and 25 clinician surveys, informed by the Practical, Robust, Implementation and Sustainability Model, to gather feedback on I-ACCESS delivery, procedures, and barriers/facilitators to implementation. Based upon survey findings, we will then focus on key implementation determinants and outcomes through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with up to 40 stakeholders. Stakeholders will include patients, caregivers, healthcare providers, financial counselors, clinical support staff, and hospital administration at participating clinical sites.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NA
Purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
Patients who screen positive for financial toxicity on the 2-question screener tool, will be referred to available counseling or navigation resources available at each site.
Perlmutter Cancer Center
New York, New York, United States
Cone Health Alamance Regional
Burlington, North Carolina, United States
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
UNC Health Pardee
Hendersonville, North Carolina, United States
Screening completion
Ratio of the number of completed screens to the number of eligible patients
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of the intervention at 8 months.
Rate of referral assistance
Ratio of the number of patients referred to counseling to the number of patients screened positive for financial distress
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of the intervention at 8 months.
Type of referral
Count/percent of reason for referral (out-of-pocket costs, non-medical expense, benefit counseling, medication cost, other)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of the intervention at 8 months.
Counseling content
Count/percent of counseling disposition (general, insurance, external referral, other)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of the intervention at 8 months.
Applications for assistance
Count/percent of external referrals (including, but not limited to, foundation/charity support, local non-medical expense resources)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of the intervention at 8 months.
Referrals to external resources
Count/percent of external referrals (including, but not limited to, foundation/charity support, local non-medical expense resources)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of the intervention at 8 months.
Predictive accuracy of tool
Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of tool vs. documented bill-paying challenges
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
NONE
Enrollment
220
Time frame: From enrollment through the end of data analysis at 12 months
Acceptability of Intervention Measure
Patient and clinician perception of intervention acceptability
Time frame: 4-6 months after implementation of I-ACCESS
Intervention Appropriateness Measure
Patient and clinician perception of intervention appropriateness
Time frame: 4-6 months after implementation of I-ACCESS
Feasibility of Intervention Measure
Patient and clinician perception of intervention feasibility
Time frame: 4-6 months after intervention completion