Search

Objective Fear of Cancer Recurrence (FCR) is highly prevalent among cancer survivors and leads to decreased quality of life and increased healthcare costs. We assessed the effectiveness of a guided online primary care intervention for FCR, compared to waiting list. Methods In this RCT, participants were recruited online and randomised 1:1. All adults who finished successful curative cancer treatment between 3 months and 10 years ago, wanted support for FCR, and had sufficient Dutch skills were eligible. The intervention consisted of a 10‐week online programme and three to five video calling sessions with a trained mental health worker. After 6 months, the control group received the same intervention. The primary outcome was the difference between the groups in the change in FCR severity from baseline (T0) to 6 months (T2), measured online with the short form of the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory. Results One hundred and seventy‐three participants were enroled and randomised to the intervention (n = 86) or control group (n = 87). FCR severity dropped 2.1 points more in the intervention group than in the control group (2.7 points (SD = 3.9) versus 0.6 points (SD = 3.6), t(154) = 3.4, p = 0.0007). General mental well‐being also improved significantly in the intervention group and remained stable in the control group. These improvements remained at 10 months follow up. Conclusions This easily accessible and relatively inexpensive intervention effectively reduces FCR and has potential to replace or precede existing more intensive psychological treatments, improving patients' access to care. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register on 25‐02‐2019 with number NL7573

Objective Care for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is considered the most common unmet need among cancer survivors. Yet the prevalence of FCR and predisposing factors remain inconclusive. To support targeted care, we provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence and severity of FCR among cancer survivors and patients, as measured using the short form of the validated Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI-SF). We also report on associations between FCR and clinical and demographic characteristics. Methods This is a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis on the prevalence of FCR. In the review, we included all studies that used the FCRI-SF with adult (≥18 years) cancer survivors and patients. Date of search: 7 February 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Results IPD were requested from 87 unique studies and provided for 46 studies comprising 11,226 participants from 13 countries. 9311 respondents were included for the main analyses. On the FCRI-SF (range 0–36), 58.8% of respondents scored ≥13, 45.1% scored ≥16 and 19.2% scored ≥22. FCR decreased with age and women reported more FCR than men. FCR was found across cancer types and continents and for all time periods since cancer diagnosis. Conclusions FCR affects a considerable number of cancer survivors and patients. It is therefore important that healthcare providers discuss this issue with their patients and provide treatment when needed. Further research is needed to investigate how best to prevent and treat FCR and to identify other factors associated with FCR. The protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42020142185).

Objective There has been an increase in testing of vitamins in patients in general practice, often based on irrational indications or for non-specific symptoms, causing increasing healthcare expenditures and medicalisation of patients. So far, there is little evidence of effective strategies to reduce this overtesting in general practice. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore the barriers and facilitators for reducing the number of (unnecessary) vitamin D and B 12 laboratory tests ordered. Design and setting This qualitative study, based on a grounded theory design, used semistructured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) and patients from two primary care networks (147 GPs, 195 000 patients). These networks participated in the Reducing Vitamin Testing in Primary Care Practice (REVERT) study, a clustered randomized trial comparing two de-implementation strategies to reduce test ordering in primary care in the Netherlands. Participants Twenty-one GPs, with a maximum of 1 GP per practice who took part in the REVERT study, and 22 patients (who were invited by their GP during vitamin-related consultations) were recruited, from which 20 GPs and 19 patients agreed to participate in this study. Results The most important factor hampering vitamin-test reduction programmes is the mismatch between patients and medical professionals regarding the presumed appropriate indications for testing for vitamin D and B 12. In contrast, the most important facilitator for vitamin-test reduction may be updating GPs' knowledge about test indications and their awareness of their own testing behaviour. Conclusion To achieve a sustainable reduction in vitamin testing, guidelines with clear and uniform recommendations on evidence-based indications for vitamin testing, combined with regular (individual) feedback on test-ordering behaviour, are needed. Moreover, the general public needs access to clear and reliable information on vitamin testing. Further research is

Purpose: to support older people with several healthcare needs in sustaining adequate functioning and independence, more proactive approaches are needed. This purpose of this study is to summarise the (cost-) effectiveness of proactive, multidisciplinary, integrated care programmes for older people in Dutch primary care. Methods design: individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of eight clinically controlled trials. Setting: primary care sector. Interventions: combination of (i) identification of older people with complex problems by means of screening, followed by (ii) a multidisciplinary integrated care programme for those identified. Main outcome: activities of daily living, i.e. a change on modified Katz-15 scale between baseline and 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes: quality of life (visual analogue scale 0-10), psychological (mental well-being scale Short Form Health Survey (SF)-36) and social well-being (single item, SF-36), quality-adjusted life years (Euroqol-5dimensions-3level (EQ-5D-3L)), healthcare utilisation and cost-effectiveness. Analysis: intention-to-treat analysis, two-stage IPD and subgroup analysis based on patient and intervention characteristics. Results: included were 8,678 participants: median age of 80.5 (interquartile range 75.3; 85.7) years; 5,496 (63.3%) women. On the modified Katz-15 scale, the pooled difference in change between the intervention and control group was -0.01 (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.08). No significant differences were found in the other patient outcomes or subgroup analyses. Compared to usual care, the probability of the intervention group to be cost-effective was less than 5%. Conclusion: compared to usual care at 1-year follow-up, strategies for identification of frail older people in primary care combined with a proactive integrated care intervention are probably not (cost-) effective.