Search

Simple Summary: This study examined the use of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid (BCS-PtDA) in eight Dutch hospitals. This PtDA supports information provision (including information about personalized recurrence risks) and decision-making about post-treatment surveillance. Health care professionals (HCPs) acknowledged that the tool helped make patients aware of their options but felt it increased their workload without clear benefits. While the tool was effective in presenting choices to patients, deliberation about the options was scarce. The main challenges were related to the extra time required and HCPs' perception of the tool's value. Risk communication was deemed generally adequate. The study suggests that, while the PtDA offers benefits, better integration and communication strategies are needed to enhance shared decision-making processes. In conclusion, the implementation of the BCS-PtDA led to choices being offered to patients. However, there is room for improvement in information provision and the application of shared decision-making. Background: To improve Shared decision-making (SDM) regarding personalized post-treatment surveillance, the Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid (BCS-PtDA), integrating personalized risk information, was developed and implemented in eight hospitals. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to (1) assess the implementation and participation rates, (2) identify facilitators and barriers for use by health care professionals (HCPs), (3) quantify the observed level of SDM, and (4) evaluate risk communication and SDM application in consultations. Methods: Implementation and participation rates and patients' BCS-PtDA use were calculated using hospital registry data and BCS-PtDA log data. HCPs' perspective on facilitators and barriers were collected using the MIDI framework. Observed SDM levels in consultation transcripts were quantified using the OPTION-5 scale. Thematic analysis was performed to assess consultation content. Results: The average PtDA implementation and participation rates were, respectively, 26% and 61%. HCPs reported that the PtDA supported choice awareness. Reported barriers for implementation were mainly increased workload and a lack of perceived benefits. The consultation analysis (n = 64) showed patients were offered a choice, but deliberation was lacking. Risk communication was generally adequate. Discussion: When the BCS-PtDA was used, patients were clearly given a choice regarding their post-treatment surveillance, but information provision and SDM application can be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Value‐based healthcare (VBHC) focusses on increasing value for patients. Hospitals aim to implement VBHC via value improvement (VI) teams for medical conditions. To determine the patient's perspective on value, collective patient participation is important in these teams. We therefore evaluated the current state of patient participation in VI teams and share lessons learned. Methods: This mixed‐methods study was conducted at seven collaborating hospitals in the Netherlands. A questionnaire (the public and patient engagement evaluation tool) was tailored to the study's context, completed by VI team members (n = 147 from 76 different VI teams) and analysed with descriptive statistics. In addition, 30 semistructured interviews were held with VI team members and analysed through thematic analysis. Data were collected between February 2022 and January 2023 and were triangulated by mapping the quantitative results to the interview themes. Results: Thirty‐eight of the 76 included VI teams reported using a form of patient participation. Many respondents (71%) indicated a lack of a clear strategy and goal for patient participation. Multiple VI team members believed that specific knowledge and skills are required for patients to participate in a VI team, but this led to concerns regarding the representativeness of participating patients. Furthermore, while patients indicated that they experienced some level of hierarchy, they also stated that they did not feel restricted hereby. Lastly, patients were satisfied with their participation and felt like equal VI team members (100%), but they did mention a lack of feedback from the VI team on their input. Conclusion: The results imply the lack of full implementation of patient participation within VI teams. Guidelines should be developed that provide information on how to include a representative group of patients, which methods to use, how to evaluate the impact of patient participation, and how to give feedback to participating patients. Patient and Public Contribution: Two patient advisors were part of the research team and attended the research team meetings. They were involved as research partners in all phases of the study, including drafting the protocol (e.g., drafting interview guides and selecting the measurement instrument), interpreting the results and writing this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundDuring a 6-week course of (chemo)radiation many head and neck cancer patients have to endure radiotherapy-induced toxicity, negatively affecting patients’ quality of life. Pretreatment counseling combined with self-help exercises could be provided to inform patients and possibly prevent them from having speech, swallowing, and shoulder problems during and after treatment. ObjectiveOur goal was to investigate the feasibility of a multimodal guided self-help exercise program entitled Head Matters during (chemo)radiation in head and neck cancer patients. MethodsHead and neck cancer patients treated with primary (chemo)radiation or after surgery were asked to perform Head Matters at home. This prophylactic exercise program, offered in three different formats, aims to reduce the risk of developing speech, swallowing, shoulder problems, and a stiff neck. Weekly coaching was provided by a speech and swallowing therapist. Patients filled out a diary to keep track of their exercise activity. To gain insight into possible barriers and facilitators to exercise adherence, reports of weekly coaching sessions were analyzed by 2 coders independently. ResultsOf 41 eligible patients, 34 patients were willing to participate (83% uptake). Of participating patients, 21 patients completed the program (64% adherence rate). The majority of participants (58%) had a moderate to high level of exercise performance. Exercise performance level was not significantly associated with age (P=.50), gender (P=.42), tumor subsite (P=1.00) or tumor stage (P=.20), treatment modality (P=.72), or Head Matters format (Web-based or paper) (P=1.00). Based on patients’ diaries and weekly coaching sessions, patients’ perceived barriers to exercise were a decreased physical condition, treatment-related barriers, emotional problems, lack of motivation, social barriers, and technical problems. Patients’ perceived facilitators included an increased physical condition, feeling motivated, and social and technical facilitators. ConclusionsHead Matters, a multimodal guided self-help exercise program is feasible for head and neck cancer patients undergoing (chemo)radiation. Several barriers (decreased physical condition, treatment-related barriers) and facilitators (increased physical condition, feeling motivated) were identified providing directions for future studies. The next step is conducting a study investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of Head Matters on speech, swallowing, shoulder function, and quality of life.

Objective: Breast cancer patients for whom less intensive surveillance is sufficient can be identified based on the risk for locoregional recurrences (LRRs). This study explores health care professionals' (HCPs) perspectives on less intensive surveillance, preferences for shared decision‐making (SDM) about surveillance and perspectives on the use of patients' estimated personal risk for LRRs in decision‐making about surveillance. Methods: We conducted semi‐structured interviews with 21 HCPs providing follow‐up care for breast cancer patients in seven Dutch teaching hospitals (Santeon hospitals). Results: HCPs were predominantly positive about less intensive surveillance for women with a low risk for recurrences. They mentioned important prerequisites such as clearly defined surveillance schedules based on risk categories, information provision and communication support for patients and HCPs. Most HCPs supported SDM about surveillance and were positive about using patients' estimated personal risk for LRRs. HCPs specified prerequisites such as clear visualisation and explanation of risk information, attention for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and defined surveillance schedules for specific risk groups. Conclusion: Mentioned prerequisites for less intensive surveillance need to be accounted for. Information needs and existing misconceptions need to be addressed. Outcome information regarding risks for LRRs and FCR can enrich the SDM process about surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundAlthough peer-to-peer contact might empower patients in various ways, studies show that only a few patients actually engage in support groups. ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to explore factors that facilitate or impede engagement in face-to-face and online peer support, using the Theory of Planned Behavior. MethodsA questionnaire was completed by 679 patients being treated for arthritis, breast cancer, or fibromyalgia at two Dutch regional hospitals. ResultsOur results showed that only a minority of the patients engaged in organized forms of peer support. In total 10% (65/679) of the respondents had engaged in face-to-face meetings for patients in the past year. Only 4% (30/679) of the respondents had contact with peers via the Internet in the past year. Patients were more positive about face-to-face peer support than about online peer support (P < .001). In accordance with the Theory of Planned Behavior, having a more positive attitude (P < .01) and feeling more supported by people in the social environment (P < .001) increased the intention to participate in both kinds of peer support. In addition, perceived behavioral control (P = .01) influenced the intention to participate in online peer support. Nevertheless, the intention to engage in face-to-face and online peer support was only modestly predicted by the Theory of Planned Behavior variables (R2 = .33 for face-to-face contact and R2 = .26 for online contact). ConclusionAlthough Health 2.0 Internet technology has significantly increased opportunities for having contact with fellow patients, only a minority seem to be interested in organized forms of peer contact (either online or face-to-face). Patients seem somewhat more positive about face-to-face contact than about online contact.

Background Patients who visit online support groups benefit in various ways. Results of our earlier study indicated that participation in online support groups had a profound effect on the participants’ feelings of “being empowered.” However, most studies of online patient support groups have focused on the members of these groups who actively contribute by sending postings (posters). Thus far, little is known about the impact for “lurkers” (ie, those who do not actively participate by sending postings). Objective In the present study, we explored if lurkers in online patient support groups profit to the same extent as posters do. MethodsWe searched the Internet with the search engine Google to identify all Dutch online support groups for patients with breast cancer, fibromyalgia, and arthritis. Invitations to complete an online survey were sent out by the owners of 19 groups. In the online questionnaire, we asked questions about demographic and health characteristics, use of and satisfaction with the online support group, empowering processes, and empowering outcomes. The online questionnaire was completed by 528 individuals, of which 109 (21%) identified themselves as lurkers. Results Lurkers (mean age 47 years) were slightly older than active participants (mean age 43 years, P = .002), had a shorter disease history (time since diagnosis 3.7 years vs 5.4 years, P = .001), and reported lower mental well-being (SF 12 subscore 37.7 vs 40.5, P = .004). No significant differences were found in other demographic variables. Posters indicated visiting the online support groups significantly more often for social reasons, such as curiosity about how other members were doing, to enjoy themselves, as a part of their daily routine (all P < .001), and because other members expected them to be there (P = .003). Lurkers and posters did not differ in their information-related reasons for visiting the online support group. Lurkers were significantly less satisfied with the online support group compared to posters (P < .001). With regard to empowering processes such as “exchanging information” and “finding recognition,” lurkers scored significantly lower than posters. However, lurkers did not differ significantly from posters with regard to most empowering outcomes, such as “being better informed,” “feeling more confident in the relationship with their physician,” “improved acceptance of the disease,” “feeling more confident about the treatment,” “enhanced self-esteem,” and “increased optimism and control.” The exception was “enhanced social well-being,” which scored significantly lower for lurkers compared to posters (P < .001). Conclusion Our study revealed that participation in an online support group had the same profound effect on lurkers’ self-reported feelings of being empowered in several areas as it had on posters. Apparently, reading in itself is sufficient to profit from participation in an online patient support group.

Objective: Follow‐up after breast cancer can be divided into surveillance and aftercare. It remains unclear how follow‐up can ideally be organised from the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study was to gain insight in the organisation of follow‐up in seven Dutch teaching hospitals and to identify best practices and opportunities for improvement of breast cancer (all stages) follow‐up as proposed by HCPs. Methods: Semi‐structured in‐depth group interviews were performed, one in each of the participating hospitals, with in total 16 HCPs and 2 patient advocates. To describe the organisation of follow‐up, transcripts were analysed using a deductive approach. Best practices and opportunities were derived using an inductive approach. Results: Variation was found in the organisation of aftercare, especially in timing, frequency, and disciplines of involved HCPs. Less variation was observed for surveillance, which was guided by the national guideline. Best practices focused on case management and adequate collaboration between HCPs of different disciplines. Mentioned opportunities were improving the structured monitoring of patients' needs and a comprehensive guideline for organisation and content of aftercare. Conclusions: Variation in follow‐up existed between hospitals. Shared decision‐making (SDM) about surveillance is desirable to ensure that surveillance matches the patient needs, preferences, and personal risk for recurrences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the treatment choice of localized prostate cancer, effective patient decision aids have been developed. The implementation of decision aids in routine care, however, lags behind. Main known barriers are lack of confidence in the tool, lack of training on its use, lack of resources and lack of time. A new implementation strategy addresses these barriers. Using this implementation strategy, the implementation rate of a decision aid was measured in eight hospitals and questionnaires were filled out by 24 care providers and 255 patients. The average implementation rate was 60 per cent (range 31%–100%). Hardly any barriers remained for care providers. Patients who did not use the decision aid appeared to be more unwilling than unable to use the decision aid. By addressing known barriers, that is, informing care providers on the effectiveness of the decision aid, providing instructions on its use, embedding it in the existing workflow and making it available free of charge, a successful implementation of a prostate cancer decision aid was reached. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implementation of patient's decision aids in routine clinical care is generally low. This study evaluated uptake and usage of a novel Dutch web-based prostate cancer treatment decision aid within the Prostate Cancer Patient Centered Care trial. From an estimated total patient sample of 1006 patients, 351 received a decision aid (35% implementation rate; hospital ranges 16%–84%). After receipt of the decision aid, most patients accessed the decision aid, utilized most functions, although not completely, and discussed the decision aid summary in a subsequent consultation with their care provider. Including nurses for dissemination of decision aids seemed to positively affect decision aid uptake. Once received, patients seemed able to use the decision aid and engage in shared decision-making as intended; however, decision aid uptake and complete usage of all decision aid components should be further improved. Prior to the diagnosis consultation, handing out of the decision aid should be prepared. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Meaning-centered group psychotherapy for cancer survivors (MCGP-CS) improves meaning, psychological well-being, and mental adjustment to cancer and reduces psychological distress. This randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the cost-utility of MCGP-CS compared with supportive group psychotherapy (SGP) and care-as-usual (CAU).Methods: In total, 170 patients were randomized to MCGP-CS, SGP, or CAU. Intervention costs, direct medical and nonmedical costs, productivity losses, and health-related quality of life were measured until 6 months follow-up, using the TIC-P, PRODISQ, data from the hospital information system, and the EQ-5D. The cost-utility was calculated by comparing mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).Results: Mean total costs ranged from €4492 (MCGP-CS) to €5304 (CAU). Mean QALYs ranged .507 (CAU) to .540 (MCGP-CS). MCGP-CS had a probability of 74% to be both less costly and more effective than CAU, and 49% compared with SGP. Sensitivity analyses showed these findings are robust. If society is willing to pay €0 for one gained QALY, MCGP-CS has a 78% probability of being cost-effective compared with CAU. This increases to 85% and 92% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of €10 000 and €30 000, which are commonly accepted thresholds.Conclusions: MCGP-CS is highly likely a cost-effective intervention, meaning that there is a positive balance between the costs and gains of MCGP-CS, in comparison with SGP and CAU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The EORTC QLQ-CR29 is a patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate health-related quality of life among colorectal cancer patients in research and clinical practice. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether the initial positive results regarding the measurement properties of the QLQ-CR29 are confirmed in subsequent studies.Methods: A systematic search of Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies investigating the measurement properties of the QLQ-CR29 published up to January 2019. For the 11 included studies, data were extracted, methodological quality was assessed, results were synthesized, and evidence was graded according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology on the measurement properties: structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, construct validity (hypothesis testing, including known-group comparison, convergent and divergent validity), cross-cultural validity, and responsiveness.Results: Internal consistency was rated as "sufficient," with low evidence. Reliability was rated as "insufficient," with moderate evidence. Construct validity (hypothesis testing; known-group comparison, convergent and divergent validity) was rated as "inconsistent," with moderate evidence. Structural validity, measurement error, and responsiveness were rated as "indeterminate" and could therefore not be graded.Conclusion: This review indicates that current evidence supporting the measurement properties of the QLQ-CR29 is limited. Additionally, better quality research is needed, taking into account the COSMIN methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oncokompas, cancer survivors monitor their quality of life by completing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), followed by personalized feedback, self-care advice, and supportive care options to stimulate patient activation. The aim of this study was to investigate feasibility and pretest-posttest differences of Oncokompas including a newly developed breast cancer (BC) module among BC survivors. Material and methods: A pretest-posttest design was used. Feasibility was investigated by means of adoption, usage, and satisfaction rates. Several socio-demographic and clinical factors, and healthrelated quality of life (HRQOL) were explored that might be associated with patient satisfaction. Barriers and facilitators of Oncokompas feasibility were investigated by evaluating nurse consultation reports. Differences in patient activation (Patient Activation Measure) and patient-physician interaction (Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions) before and after Oncokompas use were investigated. Results: In total, 101 BC survivors participated. Oncokompas had an adoption rate of 75%, a usage rate of 75-84%, a mean satisfaction score of 6.9 (range 0-10) and a Net Promoter Score (NPS) of -36 (range -100-100) (N¼68). The BC module had a mean satisfaction score of 7.6. BC survivors who received surgery including chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were significantly more satisfied with Oncokompas than BC survivors with surgery alone (p¼.013). Six facilitators and 10 barriers of Oncokompas feasibility were identified. After using Oncokompas, BC survivors scored significantly higher on patient activation (p¼.007; r¼.24), but not on patient-physician interaction (p¼.75). Conclusion: Oncokompas including a BC module is considered feasible, but needs further optimization to increase user satisfaction. This study shows the value of tailoring eHealth applications for cancer survivors to their specific tumor type. Oncokompas including the BC module seems to improve patient activation among BC survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Body image is acknowledged as an important aspect of health-related quality of life in cancer patients. The Body Image Scale (BIS) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to evaluate body image in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to systematically review measurement properties of the BIS among cancer patients.Methods: A search in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science was performed to identify studies that investigated measurement properties of the BIS (Prospero ID 42017057237). Study quality was assessed (excellent, good, fair, poor), and data were extracted and analyzed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology on structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing for construct validity, and responsiveness. Evidence was categorized into sufficient, insufficient, inconsistent, or indeterminate.Results: Nine studies were included. Evidence was sufficient for structural validity (one factor solution), internal consistency (α = 0.86-0.96), and reliability (r > 0.70); indeterminate for measurement error (information on minimal important change lacked) and responsiveness (increasing body image disturbance in only one study); and inconsistent for hypothesis testing (conflicting results). Quality of the evidence was moderate to low. No studies reported on cross-cultural validity.Conclusion: The BIS is a PROM with good structural validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability, but good quality studies on the other measurement properties are needed to optimize evidence. It is recommended to include a wider variety of cancer diagnoses and treatment modalities in these future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined partners of cancer patients intention to use a web-based psychological intervention, their preferences regarding its preconditions, functionalities and topics, and factors related to their intention. One hundred and sixty-eight partners completed a questionnaire about these aspects. Forty-eight percent of the partners would (maybe) make use of a web-based intervention. Partners who intended to participate were significantly younger, used the Internet more often, and perceived more caregiver strain. Most partners preferred an intervention that takes less than 1 hour/week, lasts five weeks or more, and contains information and peer support. Half of the partners would like to receive online guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Self-management by patients and informal caregivers confronted with advanced cancer is not self-evident. Therefore they might need self-management support from nurses. This article reports on nurses' perspectives on self-management support for people confronted with advanced cancer, and nurses' experiences with eHealth in this context. Methods: Six online focus groups were organized, with a total of 45 Dutch nurses with different educational levels and working in different care settings. Nurses were asked how they support patients and informal caregivers facing advanced cancer in managing physical and psychosocial problems in their daily life. Questions were also asked regarding the nurses' experiences with eHealth. Transcripts of the online focus group discussions were analyzed qualitatively following the principles of thematic analysis. The main themes derived from the analyses were ordered according to the elements in the 5 A's Behavior Change Model. Results: Within the scope of self-management support, nurses reported that they discuss the background, personal situation, wishes, and needs of advanced cancer patients ('Assess' in the 5 A's model), and they provide information about cancer and specifically the advanced type ('Advise'). However, nurses hardly give any advice on how patients can manage physical and psychological problems themselves and/or pay any attention to collaborative goal-setting ('Agree'). Neither do they explain how follow-up can be arranged ('Arrange'). In addition, they do not appear to pay much attention to self-management support for informal caregivers. Nurses' attitudes towards eHealth within the scope of self-management support are positive. They see many advantages, such as allowing advanced cancer patients to stay in charge of their own care and lives. However, nurses also explicitly stressed that eHealth can never be a substitute for personal contact between nurses and patients. Conclusions: Nurses value self-management support and eHealth for advanced cancer patients and their informal caregivers. However, they seem to disregard important elements in the support of self-management, such as providing practical advice, collaborative goal-setting, and arrangement of follow-up. We recommend further promoting and clarifying the essence and importance of self-management support, including self-management support for informal caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Patient decision aids (PDAs) have been developed to help patients make an informed choice for a treatment option. Despite proven benefits, structural implementation falls short of expectations. The present study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-utility of the PDA among newly diagnosed patients with localised prostate cancer and their partners, alongside implementation of the PDA in routine care. Methods/analysis A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial will be conducted. The PDA will be sequentially implemented in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands, over a period of 24 months. Every 3 or 6 months, a new cluster of hospitals will switch from usual care to care including a PDA. The primary outcome measure is decisional conflict experienced by the patient. Secondary outcomes comprise the patient's quality of life, treatment preferences, role in the decision making, expectations of treatment, knowledge, need for supportive care and decision regret. Furthermore, societal cost-utility will be valued. Other outcome measures considered are the partner's treatment preferences, experienced participation to decision making, quality of life, communication between patient, partner and health care professional, and the effect of prostate cancer on the relationship, social contacts and their role as caregiver. Patients and partners receiving the PDA will also be asked about their satisfaction with the PDA. Baseline assessment takes place after the treatment choice and before the start of a treatment, with follow-up assessments at 3, 6 and 12 months following the end of treatment or the day after deciding on active surveillance. Outcome measures on implementation include the implementation rate (defined as the proportion of all eligible patients who will receive a PDA) and a questionnaire for health care professionals on determinants of implementing an innovation. Ethics and dissemination This study will be conducted in accordance with local laws and regulations of the Medical Ethics Committee of VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The results from this stepped-wedge trial will be presented at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register NTR TC5177, registration date: May 28th 2015. Pre-results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As colon cancer is increasingly becoming a chronic illness with a broad range of symptoms, there is a need for individually tailored care for these patients.Objective: To investigate patients' opinions about GP involvement in survivorship care and the use of eHealth applications, such as Oncokompas2.0, to support self-management. Oncokompas2.0 is an interactive website that monitors quality of life via participant-reported outcomes and provides feedback and personalized supportive care.Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients diagnosed with stages I-III colon cancer treated with curative intent. Twenty participants (nine men, age range 49-86 years) were recruited in five Dutch hospitals by purposive sampling. Thematic data analysis was done by two coders.Results: Possible benefits of greater GP involvement include better accessibility of care and additional guidance. Participants considered an increased workload for the already busy GP as a disadvantage. Requirements for greater GP involvement were assurance of sufficient knowledge and expertise of the GP and easy access to secondary care. Most participants expected that Oncokompas2.0 would increase awareness of symptoms and concerns and provide more insight into support possibilities. Reservations mentioned were the expected loss of personal contact with health professionals and the feasibility of implementation in the total patient population.Conclusion: Colon cancer patients see some benefit of greater GP involvement and the use of Oncokompas2.0 to improve survivorship care. Our study results support initiatives to further explore GP-led survivorship care and the implementation of eHealth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer survivors have to deal with a wide range of physical symptoms, psychological, social and existential concerns, and lifestyle issues related to cancer and its treatment. Therefore, it is essential that they have access to optimal supportive care services. The eHealth self-management application Oncokompas was developed to support cancer survivors with where they need to turn to for advice and guidance, as well as to increase their knowledge on the availability of optimal support. A randomised controlled trial will be conducted to assess the efficacy, cost-utility and reach of Oncokompas as an eHealth self-management application compared with care as usual among cancer survivors.Methods/design: Adult cancer survivors diagnosed with breast, colorectal or head and neck cancer or lymphoma who are at 3 months to 5 years since curative treatment will be included. In total, 544 cancer survivors will be randomly assigned to the intervention group or a wait-list control group. The primary outcome measure is patient activation. Secondary outcome measures include self-efficacy, personal control, perceived patient-physician interaction, need for supportive care, mental adjustment to cancer and health-related quality of life. Furthermore, cost-utility outcomes will be assessed. Reach is defined as the percentage of cancer survivors who get access to Oncokompas within the context of this trial. Questionnaires will be administered at baseline, post-intervention and at 3- and 6-month follow-up.Discussion: In this study, we will evaluate the efficacy and cost-utility of Oncokompas among cancer survivors, as well as the reach of Oncokompas. These are essential first steps in the translation of research into practice and contribute to sustainable adoption, implementation and maintenance of an evidence-based Oncokompas.Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register identifier: NTR5774 . Registered on 8 March 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Total laryngectomy with or without adjuvant (chemo)radiation often induces speech, swallowing and neck and shoulder problems. Speech, swallowing and shoulder exercises may prevent or diminish these problems. The aim of the present paper is to describe the study, which is designed to investigate the effectiveness and cost-utility of a guided self-help exercise program built into the application "In Tune without Cords" among patients treated with total laryngectomy.Methods/design: Patients, up to 5 years earlier treated with total laryngectomy with or without (chemo)radiation will be recruited for participation in this study. Patients willing to participate will be randomized to the intervention or control group (1:1). Patients in the intervention group will be provided access to a guided self-help exercise program and a self-care education program built into the application "In Tune without Cords". Patients in the control group will only be provided access to the self-care education program. The primary outcome is the difference in swallowing quality (SWAL-QOL) between the intervention and control group. Secondary outcome measures address speech problems (SHI), shoulder disability (SDQ), quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-H&N35 and EQ-5D), direct and indirect costs (adjusted iMCQ and iPCQ measures) and self-management (PAM). Patients will be asked to complete these outcome measures at baseline, immediately after the intervention or control period (i.e. at 3 months follow-up) and at 6 months follow-up.Discussion: This randomized controlled trial will provide knowledge on the effectiveness of a guided self-help exercise program for patients treated with total laryngectomy. In addition, information on the value for money of such an exercise program will be provided. If this guided self-help program is (cost)effective for patients treated with total laryngectomy, the next step will be to implement this exercise program in current clinical practice.Trial Registration: NTR5255 Protocol version 4 date September 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) regarding their current and future role in survivorship care of patients with colon cancer, and to assess their perspectives on patients' self-management capacities and the value of the eHealth application Oncokompas2.0 used by patients. Setting: GPs from the central part of the Netherlands were interviewed at their location of preference. Participants: 20 GPs participated (10 men, 10 women, age range 34-65 years, median age 49.5 years). The median years of experience as a GP was 14.5 years (range 3-34 years). Results: GPs indicated attempting to keep in contact with patients after colon cancer treatment and mentioned being aware of symptoms of recurrent disease. Most participants would have liked to be more involved and expected to be able to provide survivorship care of colon cancer. Requirements mentioned were agreements with secondary care and a protocol. GPs considered Oncokompas2.0, which stimulates patients to structure their own survivorship care, as a useful additional tool for a specific group of patients (ie, young and highly-educated patients). Conclusions: Based on the perspectives of the GPs, survivorship care of colon cancer in primary care is deemed feasible and the use of an eHealth application such as Oncokompas2.0 is expected to benefit specific groups of patients after colon cancer treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]