Validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of the Indonesian version of FACIT-COST measure for subjective financial toxicity.

Abstract

Background: Financial toxicity describes the impairment of financial wellbeing in patients due to the burden of cancer diagnosis and care. The COST: A Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Measure of Financial Toxicity (FACIT-COST) is the most widely used cancer-specific measure of subjective financial toxicity, having been validated in multiple languages, but not in Indonesian. This study aimed to validate the Indonesian version of FACIT-COST in a breast cancer sample.

Methods: A single-center prospective cohort study was performed in Indonesia. Female breast cancer patients aged ≥ 18 undergoing treatment at baseline were invited to participate and followed for up to six months. The survey included the official Indonesian version of FACIT-COST (v2) which was administered to the patients by interviewers. Clinical information (e.g., metastasis status, disease duration) was provided based on medical records. The following measurement properties of FACIT-COST were tested: distributional characteristics, structural validity (principal component [PCA] and confirmatory factor analyses [CFA]), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega), known-groups validity (Mann-Whitney U or Kruskal-Wallis H test), test-retest reliability, and responsiveness to change.

Results: Overall, 300 female patients participated at baseline. No patients reported the best or worst possible FACIT-COST total scores. The PCA proposed a two-factor model structure for the instrument, which was confirmed by the CFA (RMSEA = 0.042, SRMR = 0.049, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99). The internal consistency reliability of the two factors was considered adequate (Cronbach's alpha = 0.774-0.882, McDonald's omega = 0.786-0.888). The FACIT-COST total score significantly discriminated across the following known-groups: age, education, residential setting, income, employment, metastasis status, number of symptoms, and financial coping strategies. The FACIT-COST demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.96) and satisfactory responsiveness to change (standardized response mean and effect size ranges=|0.39| to |0.92|).

Conclusions: This is the first study to validate the FACIT-COST in patients with breast cancer and to present the measurement properties of the Indonesian version of FACIT-COST. The Indonesian FACIT-COST demonstrates acceptable psychometric performance and shows potential as a valid measure of subjective financial toxicity. The instrument may serve as a valuable tool for informing health policies that focus on providing resource support to improve cancer care in Indonesia.