Dedicated financial hardship screening adds value to routine distress screening among gynecologic cancer patients

Objectives. To evaluate existing distress screening to identify patients with financial hardship (FH) compared to dedicated FH screening and assess patient attitudes toward FH screening. Methods. We screened gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy. Existing screening included: (1) Moderate/severe distress defined as Distress Thermometer score >= 4, (2) practical concerns identified from Problem Checklist, and (3) a single question assessing trouble paying for medications. FH screening included: (1) Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and (2) 10 -item Financial Needs Checklist to guide referrals. FH was defined as COST score < 26. We calculated sensitivity (patients with moderate/severe distress + FH over total patients with FH) and specificity (patients with no/mild distress + no FH over total patients with no FH) to assess the extent distress screening could capture FH. Surveys and exit interviews assessed patient perspectives toward screening. Results. Of 364 patients screened for distress, average age was 62 years, 25% were Black, 45% were Medicare beneficiaries, 32% had moderate/severe distress, 15% reported >= 1 practical concern, and 0 reported trouble paying for medications. Most ( n = 357, 98%) patients also completed FH screening: of them, 24% screened positive for FH, 32% reported >= 1 financial need. Distress screening had 57% sensitivity and 77% specificity for FH. Based on 79 surveys and 43 exit interviews, FH screening was acceptable with feedback to improve the timing and setting of screening. Conclusions. Dedicated FH screening was feasible and acceptable, but sensitivity was low. Importantly, 40% of women with FH would not have been identified with distress screening alone. (c) 2024 Published by Elsevier Inc.