Patients' and oncologists' perceptions towards the discussion on high-cost innovative cancer therapies: findings from a qualitative study

Osnat Bashkin, Keren Dopelt, Noam Asna

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objectives In the last decades, innovative technologies for cancer treatment were developed rapidly. In most cases, their price is high, with no funding offered by public health systems. The present study examined the perceptions of oncologists, patients and family members regarding the challenges in discussing innovative cancer treatments. Design Qualitative study, using in-depth semistructured interviews. Interviews examined public versus private financing, therapist-patient-family discourse, modes of decision making and implications on health policy and inequalities. Participants Sixteen cancer patients, six family members of cancer patients and 16 oncologists participated in the study. Results Four themes emerged from data analysis: the economic consideration in the decision on cancer treatment, the options of funding high-cost private treatments, psychosocial aspects of the discussion on treatment costs and health policy in oncology and its social aspects. Conclusions Findings emphasise the importance of considering costs when recommending expensive care and addressing the emotional element of innovative treatment, as most patients expect. The findings present various psychosocial aspects taking part in the complicated decision to use unfunded cancer treatment and its broad implications, which may use as a basis for developing a guided framework for oncologist-patient discourse.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere062104
JournalBMJ Open
Volume12
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - 27 Sep 2022

Keywords

  • health economics
  • health policy
  • oncology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Patients' and oncologists' perceptions towards the discussion on high-cost innovative cancer therapies: findings from a qualitative study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this