DEcrease STress through RESilience training for Students (DESTRESS) Study: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial nested in a longitudinal observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic stress and burnout are highly prevalent among academically trained healthcare professionals, negatively affecting their well-being and capacity to engage in their work. Resilience to stress develops early in one's career path, hence offering resilience training to university students in these professions is one approach to fostering well-being and mental health. The aim of this study is to assess whether offering mindfulness-based resilience training to university students in healthcare professions reduces their perceived chronic stress. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study has a hybrid design combining a longitudinal observational cohort with a nested randomized controlled trial (RCT) with sequential multiple assignment and multistage adaptive interventions while taking participants' preferences into account. All students in healthcare related programmes at the Erasmus University Rotterdam are invited to participate. Within the observational cohort, students with a score of 14 or higher on the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) are invited to take part in the RCT (n = 706). Eligible participants are randomized to control or active intervention in a ratio of 1:6. Those randomized to the control group and non-randomized participants in the cohort receive passive web-based psychoeducation about chronic stress and burnout through referral to specific websites. Participants randomized to the intervention group receive one of 8 active mindfulness-based interventions. They select a rank order of 4 preferred interventions and are randomized across these with equal probability. Non-response to the intervention is followed by sequential randomized assignment to another intervention, for a total maximum of 3 sequential interventions. All participants receive questionnaires at baseline, before and after each 8-week intervention period, and at 1- and 2-year follow-up. The primary outcome is perceived chronic stress measured with the PSS. Secondary outcomes include mental well-being, burnout, quality of life, healthcare utilization, drug use, bodyweight, mental and physical stress-related symptoms, resilience, and study progress. ETHICS AND REGISTRATION: Approval from the Medical Ethics Review Committee was obtained under protocol number MEC-2018-1645. The trial is registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register by registration number NL7623, 22/03/2019, https://www.trialregister.nl/.

Effectiveness of the "Living with Cancer" peer self-management support program for persons with advanced cancer and their relatives: study protocol of a non-randomized stepped wedge study.

BACKGROUND: Persons with advanced cancer and their relatives experience physical, emotional, and psychosocial consequences of the illness. Most of the time, they must deal with these themselves. While peer self-management support programs may be helpful, there is little evidence on their value for this population. We present the research protocol of our SMART study that will evaluate the effectiveness of the "Living with Cancer" peer self-management support program, aimed at improving self-management behaviors, self-efficacy, and health-related quality of life of persons with advanced cancer and their relatives. METHODS: We will conduct a non-randomized stepped wedge study in the Netherlands. We will include 130 persons with advanced cancer and 32 relatives. Participants can choose to either start the program within 4 weeks after inclusion or after eight to 10 weeks. The "Living with Cancer" is a peer self-management support program, based on the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program. It consists of six 1,5 hours video-conferencing group meetings with eight to 12 participants, preceded by two or three preparatory audio clips with supportive text per session. The program has the following core components: the learning of self-management skills (action-planning, problem-solving, effective communication, and decision-making), discussing relevant themes (e.g. dealing with pain and fatigue, living with uncertainty, and future planning), and sharing experiences, knowledge, and best practices. The primary outcome for both persons with advanced cancer and relatives is self-management behavior assessed by the subscale "constructive attitudes and approaches" of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are other self-management behaviors, self-efficacy, health-related quality of life, symptoms, depression and anxiety, and loneliness. Participants complete an online questionnaire at baseline, and after eight and 16 weeks. After each session, they complete a logbook about their experiences. Group meetings will be video recorded. DISCUSSION: SMART aims to evaluate an innovative program building on an evidence-based self-management program. New features are its use for persons with advanced cancer, the inclusion of relatives, and the video-conferencing format for this population. The use of both quantitative and qualitative analyses will provide valuable insight into the effectiveness and value of this program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the Dutch Trial Register on October 2021, identifier NL9806 .

The views of healthcare professionals on self-management of patients with advanced cancer: An interview study.

OBJECTIVES: Self-management of patients with advanced cancer is challenging. Although healthcare professionals may play a crucial role in supporting these patients, scant scientific attention has been paid to their perspectives. Therefore, we examined healthcare professionals' views on self-management and self-management support in this population. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 27 purposively sampled medical specialists (n = 6), nurse specialists (n = 6), general practitioners (n = 8) and homecare/ hospice nurses (n = 7) in the Netherlands. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals experienced self-management of patients with advanced cancer to be diverse, dynamic and challenging. They adopted instructive, collaborative and advisory roles in self-management support for this population. Whereas some professionals preferred or inclined towards one role, others indicated to switch roles, depending on the situation. CONCLUSIONS: Just like patients with advanced cancer, healthcare professionals differ in their views and approaches regarding self-management and self-management support in this population. Therefore, instructive, collaborative and advisory self-management support roles will all be useful under certain circumstances. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare professionals can support self-management by being aware of their own views and communicating these clearly to their patients and colleagues. Education in self-management support should include self-reflection skills and discuss the relation between self-management and professional care.

Interventions that Facilitate Shared Decision-Making in Cancers with Active Surveillance as Treatment Option: a Systematic Review of Literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Medical decisions concerning active surveillance are complex, especially when evidence on superiority of one of the treatments is lacking. Decision aids have been developed to facilitate shared decision-making on whether to pursue an active surveillance strategy. However, it is unclear how these decision aids are designed and which outcomes are considered relevant. The purpose of this study is to systematically review all decision aids in the field of oncological active surveillance strategies and outcomes used by authors to assess their efficacy. RECENT FINDINGS: A search was performed in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsycINFO Ovid and Google Scholar until June 2019. Eligible studies concerned interventions aiming to facilitate shared decision-making for patients confronted with several treatment alternatives, with active surveillance being one of the treatment alternatives. Twenty-three eligible articles were included. Twenty-one articles included patients with prostate cancer, one with thyroid cancer and one with ovarian cancer. Interventions mostly consisted of an interactive web-based decision aid format. After categorization of outcomes, seven main groups were identified: knowledge, involvement in decision-making, decisional conflict, treatment preference, decision regret, anxiety and health-related outcomes. Although active surveillance has been implemented for several malignancies, interventions that facilitate shared decision-making between active surveillance and other equally effective treatment alternatives are scarce. Future research should focus on developing interventions for malignancies like rectal cancer and oesophageal cancer as well. The efficacy of interventions is mostly assessed using short-term outcomes.

Encouraging psychological outcomes after altruistic donation to a stranger.

In a growing number of transplant centers worldwide, altruistic donors are accepted to anonymously donate a kidney to a stranger. An important hesitation to expand these transplantation programs is the fear of evoking psychological distress in the altruistic donor after donation. To what extent this fear is justified has not yet been systematically investigated. In this study, 24 altruistic donors were interviewed on average 2 years after donation. Lifetime mental health history, current psychological complaints, satisfaction with and impact of the donation on well-being, motives for donation, communication with recipient and donation experience were assessed. Altruistic donors report a considerable positive impact of donation on psychological well-being, whereas negative impact was limited. Satisfaction with donation was very high. Although a history of a psychiatric diagnosis was ascertained in almost half of the donors, psychological complaints before and after donation were comparable to national average norm scores. Motives for donation were genuine and the experience of donation generally conformed to their expectations. In conclusion, living kidney donation to a stranger does not appear to exacerbate psychological complaints. Moreover, altruistic donors report considerable satisfaction and personal benefit. The exceptional gift of altruistic donors can contribute toward solving the current organ shortage issue.

[Cross-over transplantation; a new national program for living kidney donations]. / Gepaarde donorruil; nieuw landelijk programma voor nierdonatie bij leven.

In the Netherlands, cross-over kidney transplantation has been introduced as an extra option in the living kidney donation programme. In cross-over transplantation, patients who cannot be given their own partner's kidney for immunological reasons are given a kidney from the partner of another patient in exchange for a kidney from their own partner. There is no difference in the medical indications and contraindications between direct and indirect living donation. There are no ethical obstacles since the net gain for the two couples is no different from that of direct living kidney donation and because the exchange takes place on the basis of equality. One should be aware that the extra possibilities may result in more psychological pressure on potential donors. It is important that the donation procedures start at the same moment and that the wishes of patients and donors for anonymity be preserved. A successful cross-over kidney transplantation programme requires a large pool of donors and patients. Therefore, this has been organised in a national programme. The Dutch Transplantation Foundation is responsible for the allocation of cross-over kidneys. Organ trade will thus be impossible. The seven Dutch centres for kidney transplantation have developed a protocol.