Background: In addition to greater delays in cancer screening and greater financial hardship, rural-dwelling cancer patients experience greater costs associated with accessing cancer care, including higher cumulative travel costs. This study aimed to identify and synthesize peer-reviewed research on the cumulative and overlapping costs associated with care access and utilization. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to identify relevant studies published after 1995 by searching 5 electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo, and Healthcare Administration. Eligibility was determined using the PEO (Population, Exposure, and Outcomes) method, with clearly defined populations (cancer patients), exposures (financial hardship, toxicity, or distress; travel-related burdens), and outcomes (treatment access, treatment outcomes, health-related quality of life, and survival/mortality). Study characteristics, methods, and findings were extracted and summarized. Results: Database searches yielded 6439 results, of which 3366 were unique citations. Of those, 141 were eligible for full-text review, and 98 studies at the intersection of cancer-related travel burdens and financial hardship were included. Five themes emerged as we extracted from the full texts of the included articles: 1) Cancer treatment choices, 2) Receipt of guideline-concordant care, 3) Cancer treatment outcomes, 4) Health-related quality of life, and 5) Propensity to participate in clinical trials. Conclusions: This scoping review identifies and summarizes available research at the intersection of cancer care-related travel burdens and financial hardship. This review will inform the development of future interventions aimed at reducing the negative effects of cancer-care related costs on patient outcomes and quality of life.

PURPOSE: As oncology practices implement routine screening for financial hardship (FH) and health-related social needs, interventions that address these needs must be implemented. A growing body of literature has reported on FH interventions. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, PsychInfo, and CINAHL to identify key studies (2000-2024) reporting on interventions to address cancer-related FH. Full-length manuscripts were included in the review if they detailed a research, quality improvement, or community-based intervention to address at least one element of FH and drew association with an outcome of interest. Studies were categorized by intervention type and qualitatively analyzed to identify critical components, outcomes, and limitations. RESULTS: Forty-four publications reporting on 43 interventions were included in the final analysis and were categorized as research interventions (n = 20) and real-world programs (n = 20). Studies reporting on financial navigation programs (n = 17) and specialty pharmacy assistance programs (n = 11) were most common; enrolled patients received concrete assistance with direct medical costs and cost-of-living expenses (eg, transportation and food). In addition, several of these programs improved overall patient-reported financial toxicity, decreased appointment no-shows, and improved enrollment in clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Interventions to address FH are feasible and can address all domains of FH—material, behavioral, and psychosocial. Future research should address the uptake and implementation of these interventions across diverse cancer care delivery settings. Such programs will be an essential part of cancer care delivery until broad social and policy changes can address the underlying factors that contribute to FH in Americans with cancer.

PURPOSE: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; age 18-39 years) with cancer report needing support with health insurance. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual health insurance navigation intervention (HIAYA CHAT) to improve health insurance literacy (HIL), awareness of Affordable Care Act (ACA) protections, financial toxicity, and stress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HIAYA CHAT is a four-session navigator delivered program; it includes psychoeducation on insurance, navigating one's plan, insurance-related laws, and managing costs. Participants were eligible if they could access an internet-capable device, were <1 year from diagnosis, and received treatment from University of Utah Healthcare or Intermountain Health systems. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of HIAYA CHAT compared with usual navigation care, including HIL (nine items), insurance knowledge (13 items), ACA protections (eight items), COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST; 11 items), and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; four items), using t tests and Cohen's d. RESULTS: From November 2020 to December 2021, N = 86 AYAs enrolled (44.6% participation) and 89.3% completed the 5-month follow-up survey; 68.6% were female, 72.1% were White, 23.3% were Hispanic, 65.1% were age 26-39 years, and 87.2% were privately insured. Of intervention participants (n = 45), 67.4% completed all four sessions; among an exit interview subset (n = 10), all endorsed the program (100%). At follow-up, compared with usual navigation care, intervention participants had greater improvements in HIL, insurance and ACA protections knowledge, and PSS; effect sizes ranged from moderate to large (0.42-0.77). COST did not differ. CONCLUSION: The results support the feasibility and acceptability of HIAYA CHAT with related improvements in HIL.

Access to care remains a persistent challenge for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. We review key findings in the science to date. (1) Location of care matters. There is survival benefit for AYAs treated either at a pediatric center or site with special status (eg, Children's Oncology Group, National Cancer Institute [NCI]–designated Comprehensive Cancer Center). (2) Socioeconomic status and insurance require further investigation. Medicaid expansion has had a moderate effect on AYA outcomes. The dependent care expansion benefit has come largely from improvements in coverage for younger populations whose parents have insurance, while some subgroups likely still face insurance gaps. (3) Clinical trial enrollment remains poor, but access may be improving. Numerous barriers and facilitators of clinical trial enrollment include those that are system level and patient level. NCI has established several initiatives over the past decade to improve enrollment, and newer collaboratives have recently brought together multidisciplinary US teams to increase clinical trial enrollment. (4) Effective AYA programs require provider and system flexibility and program reflection. With flexibility comes a need for metrics to assess program effectiveness in the context of the program model. Centers treating AYAs with cancer could submit a subset of metrics (appropriate to their program and/or services) to maintain their status; persistence would require an entity with staying power committed to overseeing the metrics and the system. Substantial clinical and biological advances are anticipated over the next 20 years that will benefit all patients with cancer. In parallel, it is crucial to prioritize research regarding access to health care and cancer care delivery; only with equitable access to care for AYAs can they, too, benefit from these advances.

The study objective was to identify sociodemographic and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) factors that are associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors. Eligible participants were 18 years or older and were diagnosed with cancer as an AYA (ages 15-39 years) and received services through an AYA cancer program. A total of 342 participants completed a cross-sectional survey. Our primary outcome—COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy—was surveyed as a 5-point Likert scale and operationalized as a binary outcome (agree vs hesitant). A large proportion of participants reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (37.1%). In the multivariable regression, female survivors (odds ratio = 1.81, 95% confidence interval = 1.10 to 2.98) and survivors with a high school education or less (odds ratio = 3.15, 95% confidence interval = 1.41 to 7.04) reported higher odds of vaccine hesitancy compared with their male or college graduate or higher counterparts. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy persists among AYA survivors despite their recommended priority vaccination status and higher chances of severe COVID-19 outcomes.