Implementation outcomes
SAID
Most clinicians had positive views on using the intervention. Regarding acceptability, all clinicians stated that they approved of the intervention (100% agreed or strongly agreed; mean = 4.2 [SD: 0.4], range: 4–5), and 4/5 (80%) said they welcomed using the intervention in practice moving forward (mean = 3.8 [SD: 0.4], range: 3–4). The majority of clinicians found the intervention fitting, suitable, and applicable for their practice (80% agreed or completely agreed; mean = 3.8 [SD: 0.4], range: 3–4), highlighting the appropriateness. Regarding feasibility, 80% agreed or completely agreed that it seems implementable in their practice and seems easy to use. However, a little more than half (3/5 or 60%) of clinicians described using it as easy and effective, only 2/5 (40%) described it as timesaving and collaborative, and 1/5 (20%) described it as necessary. One clinician (20%) described it as inefficient and laborious.Patients stated that they preferred having cost discussions with a doctor (68% agreed or strongly agreed; mean = 3.9 [SD: 1.0], range: 2–5), compared with a social worker or financial counsellor (only 28% agreed or strongly agreed; mean = 3.0 [SD: 1.1], range: 1–5). Additionally, patients wanted to know their out‐of‐pocket costs before they were treated (75% agreed or strongly agreed; mean = 4.0 [SD: 1.0], range: 2–5), but were mixed in terms of whether they consider out‐of‐pocket costs when making treatment decisions (28% agreed or strongly agreed; mean = 2.8 [SD: 1.2]).The majority of patients who received the intervention approved of their doctor using the intervention (70% agreed or strongly agreed; mean = 3.9 [SD: 0.7], range: 3–5). Additionally, most patients found the intervention appealing and welcomed their doctor using it (mean = 3.7 [SD: 0.8], range 2–5 and mean = 3.8 [SD: 0.8], 3–5, respectively).