IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v9y2025i4d10.1007_s41669-025-00568-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the Socioeconomic Impact of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Standardized Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments

Author

Listed:
  • Phu Duy Pham

    (German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)
    University of Heidelberg)

  • Jasper Ubels

    (German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)
    University of Heidelberg)

  • Rachel Eckford

    (German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ))

  • Michael Schlander

    (German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)
    University of Heidelberg
    University of Heidelberg
    Institute for Innovation & Valuation in Health Care (InnoVal-HC))

Abstract

Background A number of instruments have been developed to measure the socioeconomic impact (SEI) of cancer. A standardized comparison of the quality and content validity of these instruments is lacking. This study aimed to (1) conduct a standardized assessment of the quality of SEI instruments and (2) assess the content validity of these instruments using the conceptual framework developed by the Organization of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) for SEI analysis. Method We identified articles measuring the SEI of cancer with ad hoc and/or validated instruments from an existing database. These articles were the initial pearls in a systematic review of published articles that applied and validated these instruments using the pearl-growing search strategy in PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. The Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool was utilized to provide quantitative assessment and comparison of the quality of identified instruments. To examine content validity, we allocated each instrument’s items against the themes and sub-themes of the established conceptual framework for SEI analysis. Results We identified and investigated 21 validation studies using nine original instruments. The number of articles varied significantly among the identified instruments. The COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) instrument was the most frequently used, validated in ten different settings, whereas some newer instruments have not been applied yet. This variation resulted in significant differences in EMPRO overall scores among these instruments. Regarding content validity, we found that not all themes of the OECI framework were covered by the content of the instruments. Conclusion The quality and the application of instruments measuring the SEI of cancer varied significantly. The content of the instruments seems not to cover all related themes of the applied OECI framework in this study. Further studies are warranted to confirm the quality and content validity of the instruments measuring the SEI of cancer.

Suggested Citation

  • Phu Duy Pham & Jasper Ubels & Rachel Eckford & Michael Schlander, 2025. "Measuring the Socioeconomic Impact of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Standardized Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 519-539, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:9:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-025-00568-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-025-00568-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-025-00568-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-025-00568-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:9:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-025-00568-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.