PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 20, 2026Current Opinion in Oncology0 citations

Understanding financial toxicity in cancer care through a social–ecological lens

View Full Paper
JBJoshua BudhuBTBridgette ThomFCFumiko Chino

Key Points

  • This review aims to conceptualize financial toxicity in cancer care using the Social–Ecological Model.
  • Critically reviewed literature on financial toxicity and its influences at various levels.
  • Analyzed individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and societal factors contributing to financial burden.
  • Identified promising interventions and necessary policy reforms.
  • Financial toxicity stems from interconnected factors at individual, interpersonal, organizational, and community levels.
  • Community inequities such as transportation barriers worsen financial hardship for patients.
  • Proposed interventions include financial counseling, patient navigation, and policy reforms for better coverage.

Abstract

Purpose of review Financial toxicity, defined as the material hardship and psychological distress associated with the costs of cancer care, has become a central concern in oncology as treatment complexity and patient cost-sharing increase. This review uses the Social–Ecological Model to conceptualize financial toxicity across multiple levels of influence, shifting focus from individual behaviors to the broader interpersonal, organizational, community, and societal systems that shape financial risk. Recent findings Financial toxicity arises through interconnected drivers across the Social–Ecological Model. At the individual level, direct and indirect treatment costs contribute to material and psychological burden. Interpersonally, limited cost communication and negative insurance interactions exacerbate distress. Organizational factors, including billing practices, ancillary expenses, and inflexible workflows, shape time and financial demands. Community-level inequities such as transportation barriers and area deprivation further compound hardship. Promising interventions include essential-needs programs, patient navigation, food support, financial counseling, structured cost conversations, universal screening, reduced ancillary fees, consolidated appointments, and partnerships with community groups. Societal drivers – including insurance design, cost sharing, and rising out-of-pocket expenses – require policy reforms that expand coverage generosity, address drug pricing, improve utilization-management transparency, and strengthen protections against medical debt. Summary Conceptualizing financial toxicity through a social–ecological lens underscores that meaningful progress requires multilevel interventions and coordinated efforts across patients, clinicians, institutions, communities, and policymakers.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Budhu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6997fa03ad1d9b11b3452ef5https://doi.org/10.1097/cco.0000000000001215
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Longitudinal outcomes after financial toxicity and health-related social risks screening and referral.2024 · 2 citations
  2. 2Return to work, work productivity loss and activity impairment in Chinese breast cancer survivors 12-month post-surgery: a longitudinal study2024 · 21 citations
  3. 3Measuring financial toxicity as a clinically relevant patient‐reported outcome: The validation of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST)2016 · 923 citations
  4. 4Crowdfunding campaigns and cancer survivorship: A comprehensive overview of GoFundMe in the US in the last decade.2023 · 3 citations
  5. 5Deference in Indians' decision making: Introjected goals or injunctive norms?2011 · 60 citations