Improving Cancer Treatment Communication between Secondary and Primary Care: A New Format for Written Communication.

In decision making for cancer treatment, information is crucial for patients and health care professionals. Although conversations about treatment decisions take place in hospitals, many patients also appreciate the insights of their general practitioner (GP). GPs indicated that, in order to have meaningful conversations about treatment decisions with their patients, they need additional information about treatment options and considerations, such as expected benefits and side effects. In this practice innovation, we developed and implemented a new written communication format from medical specialists to GPs, aimed at providing accurate treatment information to facilitate GPs in supporting patients with cancer in decision-making. The new format added 3 specific headings to standard letters in the electronic patient files (EPFs): (1) treatment options, (2) treatment considerations, and (3) treatment intent. This innovation was implemented in a large university hospital in the Netherlands between 2020 and 2021. We performed a process evaluation of the implementation using the RE-AIM model, based on assessment of written communication obtained from patients' EPFs, and telephonic interviews with specialists and GPs. In the Netherlands, all inhabitants are registered with a GP, who acts as a gatekeeper to specialist care, and has a comprehensive overview of a patient's history, based on digital communication with hospitals after referral for specialist care. EPFs are used to generate digital letters to communicate between medical specialists in a hospital and GPs outside the hospital. Incorporating new headings in the communication format in the EPF successfully encouraged medical specialists to share such information when used appropriately. Treatment options, considerations, and treatment intent were stated more often in the new format compared with the old format. GPs appreciated the new format, highlighting the value of including treatment considerations, which enhanced their comprehension of the medical specialist's thought processes. Recognition of the problem and motivation for improvement facilitated the implementation. Specialists stated the format to be time-efficient compared with the old format; however, technical improvements could make it easier to use. Automaticity to use of the old format, inadequate information, and technical issues were a barrier for implementation. In summary, a straightforward innovation can improve communication between medical specialists and GPs and promote the role of the GPs in decision making for cancer treatment.

Cancer survivors' experiences of a physical activity program in primary care: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to gain insight into the experiences of, and reasons for, cancer survivors participating in a primary care PA program. METHODS: We interviewed 17 patients from 11 Dutch GP practices. Patients were selected by purposive sampling based on their general practice, gender, educational level, motivation for PA, and change in PA. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and pseudonymized for inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three domains were identified with five themes: institutional domain: GP practice; program-specific domain: content sessions and PA, and activity tracker and goal setting; individual domain: experienced benefits, and personalized care needs. Participants valued the PA program because it was offered close to home, without additional costs, and by a trusted practice nurse familiar with the patients' medical background. Activity tracker use and goal setting motivated many participants but also led to demotivation and feelings of failure in others. Reported benefits included behavior change and favorable health outcomes. Many patients expressed the need to personalize psychological support and the program's timing. CONCLUSIONS: Access to a PA program in a primary care setting is valued for its accessibility and experienced health benefits, but also seems to meet an unmet need for support in picking up life during cancer recovery. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Primary care is important for continued care of cancer survivors. An accessible PA program in this setting may fulfil a need for not only lifestyle support but also continuing life after cancer treatment.

Cancer follow-up in primary care after treatment with curative intent: Views of patients with breast and colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Increased cancer survival leads to more patients requiring oncological follow-up. Debate about how best to coordinate this care has led to the proposed involvement of general practitioners (GPs) rather than continued reliance on hospital care. However, we still require patient opinions to inform this debate. METHODS: This qualitative interview study explored opinions about organization of follow-up care of patients treated curatively for breast and colorectal cancer. Thematic analysis was applied. RESULTS: We interviewed 29 patients and identified three themes concerning care substitution: "benefits and barriers," "requirements," and "suitable patient groups." Benefits included accessibility, continuity, contextual knowledge, and psychosocial support. Barriers included concerns about cancer-specific expertise of GPs and longer waiting times. Requirements were sufficient time and remuneration, sufficient training, clear protocols, and shared-care including efficient communication with specialists. CONCLUSIONS: According to patients with cancer, formal GP involvement appears feasible, although important barriers must be overcome before instituting care substitution. A possible solution are personalized follow-up plans based on three-way conversations with the specialist and the GP after the initial hospital care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: With adequate training, time, and remuneration, formal GP involvement could ensure more comprehensive care, possibly starting with less complex cases.

Survival After Wait-and-See Approach in Older Patients With Unexplained Iron Deficiency Anemia in Primary Care: A Practice Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines recommend upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopic evaluation for patients without a clear physiological explanation for iron deficiency anemia (IDA). However, the consequences of watchful waiting in older patients with unexplained IDA in general practice are unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate characteristics and survival of patients with an unexplained IDA in general practice who refrain from medical specialist evaluation. DESIGN: Historical prospective study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥70 years with IDA coded in their medical records were selected from the Dutch Academic General Practitioner Development Network (AHON) database. METHODS: Based on their medical records, patients with an unexplained IDA were classified as (1) referred for medical specialist evaluation, or (2) no or noninvasive evaluation in general practice. RESULTS: Compared to patients who were referred for medical specialist evaluation (n = 235, 47.8%), patients who had no or noninvasive evaluation (n = 257; 52.5%) were older (median respectively 79 vs 82 years old, P < .01) and more likely to have congestive heart failure (respectively 17.4% and 26.1%, P = .02) and dementia (respectively 2.6% and 8.9%, P < .01). Two-year survival was significantly higher in patients who were referred for medical specialist evaluation compared to patients who had no or noninvasive evaluation (respectively, 83.9% and 75.5%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Although mortality was significantly higher in the older and more comorbid patients who had no or noninvasive evaluation in general practice, survival was still high in this patient group. Therefore, non-guideline adherence and a wait-and-see approach could be discussed in a shared-decision-making consultation.

Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak-Delayed Referral of Colorectal and Lung Cancer in Primary Care: A National Retrospective Cohort Study.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak impacted health care. We investigated its impact on the time to referral and diagnosis for symptomatic cancer patients in The Netherlands. We performed a national retrospective cohort study utilizing primary care records linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry. For patients with symptomatic colorectal, lung, breast, or melanoma cancer, we manually explored free and coded texts to determine the durations of the primary care (IPC) and secondary care (ISC) diagnostic intervals during the first COVID-19 wave and pre-COVID-19. We found that the median IPC duration increased for colorectal cancer from 5 days (Interquartile Range (IQR) 1-29 days) pre-COVID-19 to 44 days (IQR 6-230, p < 0.01) during the first COVID-19 wave, and for lung cancer, the duration increased from 15 days (IQR) 3-47) to 41 days (IQR 7-102, p < 0.01). For breast cancer and melanoma, the change in IPC duration was negligible. The median ISC duration only increased for breast cancer, from 3 (IQR 2-7) to 6 days (IQR 3-9, p < 0.01). For colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma, the median ISC durations were 17.5 (IQR (9-52), 18 (IQR 7-40), and 9 (IQR 3-44) days, respectively, similar to pre-COVID-19 results. In conclusion, for colorectal and lung cancer, the time to primary care referral was substantially prolonged during the first COVID-19 wave. In such crises, targeted primary care support is needed to maintain effective cancer diagnosis.

The Impact of the COVID Pandemic on the Incidence of Presentations with Cancer-Related Symptoms in Primary Care.

Introduction: In the Netherlands, the onset of the coronavirus pandemic saw shifts in primary health service provision away from physical consultations, cancer-screening programs were temporarily halted, and government messaging focused on remaining at home. In March and April 2020, weekly cancer diagnoses decreased to 73% of their pre-COVID levels, and 39% for skin cancer. This study aims to explore the effect of the COVID pandemic on patient presentations for cancer-related symptoms in primary care in The Netherlands. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using routine clinical primary care data. Monthly incidences of patient presentations for cancer-related symptoms in five clinical databases in The Netherlands were analysed from March 2018 to February 2021. Results: Data demonstrated reductions in the incidence of cancer-related symptom presentations to primary care during the first COVID wave (March-June 2020) of -34% (95% CI: -43 to -23%) for all symptoms combined. In the second wave (October 2020-February 2021) there was no change in incidence observed (-8%, 95% CI -20% to 6%). Alarm-symptoms demonstrated decreases in incidence in the first wave with subsequent incidences that continued to rise in the second wave, such as: first wave: breast lump -17% (95% CI: -27 to -6%) and haematuria -15% (95% CI -24% to -6%); and second wave: rectal bleeding +14% (95% CI: 0 to 30%) and breast lump +14% (95% CI: 2 to 27%). Presentations of common non-alarm symptom such as tiredness and naevus demonstrated decreased in-cidences in the first wave of 45% (95% CI: -55% to -33%) and 37% (95% CI -47% to -25%). In the second wave, tiredness incidence was reduced by 20% (95% CI: -33% to -3%). Subgroup analy-sis did not demonstrate difference in incidence according to sex, age groups, comorbidity status, or previous history of cancer. Conclusions: These data describe large-scale primary care avoidance that did not increase until the end of the first COVID year for many cancer-related symptoms, suggestive that substantial numbers of patients delayed presenting to primary care. For those patients who had underlying cancer, this may have had impacted the cancer stage at diagnosis, treatment, and mortality.

Follow-up of curatively treated cancer in primary care: a qualitative study of the views of Dutch GPs.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up for cancer typically occurs in secondary care, and improved survival has increased demands on these services. Other care models may alleviate this burden, such as moving (parts of) follow-up care for curatively treated patients from secondary to primary care (care substitution). AIM: To explore the opinions of GPs regarding the potential benefits, barriers, and requirements of care substitution for breast and colorectal cancer. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study of the opinions of purposively sampled GPs in Dutch primary care. METHOD: Focus group sessions and individual semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two focus groups (n = 14) were conducted followed by nine individual interviews. Three main themes were identified: perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and perceived requirements. Perceived benefits included better accessibility and continuity of care, and care closer to patients' homes. Uncertainty about cancer-related competences and practical objections were perceived as barriers. Requirements included close specialist collaboration, support from patients for this change, and stepwise implementation to avoid loss of existing care quality. CONCLUSION: Most GPs reported that they were not in favour of complete care substitution, but that primary care could have greater formal involvement in oncological follow-up if there is close collaboration with secondary care (that is, shared care), support from patients, sufficient resource allocation, stepwise implementation with clear guidelines, and monitoring of quality. Clear and broadly supported protocols need to be developed and tested before implementing follow-up in primary care.

Implementation and evaluation of a physical activity counselling programme in primary care among cancer survivors: SoDA study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity (PA) favourably affects various health outcomes in cancer survivors, but little is known about how to implement a PA programme in primary care. We therefore aim to implement and evaluate such a programme for cancer survivors in general practice. METHODS AND ANALYSES: The Stimulation of Daily Activity study is an implementation study with a single-arm longitudinal design in 15 Dutch general practices. Patients aged ≥18 years who finished cancer treatment more than 6 months ago will be eligible for inclusion. The intervention will comprise six coaching sessions with the practice nurse in 9 months, seeking to increase PA in daily activities and using an activity tracker for goal setting and feedback. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework will be used to evaluate implementation in terms of the health outcomes, extent of implementation and barriers and facilitators to implementation, using a mixed methods approach. Descriptive analyses and linear mixed model analyses will be performed on the quantitative data, while qualitative data from focus groups and interviews will be analysed by thematic analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Groningen, the Netherlands, concluded that this study was not subject to the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (registration number: 201900586). The study results will be made available to patients and general practitioners via (inter)national publications and conferences, newsletters, public summaries and via (social) media.

Cancer detection during the COVID-19 pandemic-Experiences in primary care and recommendations for the future.

Background: To describe general practitioners (GPs) experiences with the impact COVID-19 on the duration of cancer detection. Methods: Cross-sectional survey study among Dutch GPs. Results: Fifty-eight GPs participated. During the first wave, COVID-19-related delays were experienced by 88%, 52%, and 67% of GPs in the contact-seeking, primary care, and referral phases, respectively. GPs reported delays due to telehealth consultations, longer waiting times and patient's concerns of COVID infections and overburdening GPs. Conclusions: The majority of GPs experienced delays in cancer diagnostic processes during the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which was most prominent in the timeliness in which patients sought GP care.

Home-based Physical Activity to Alleviate Fatigue in Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Physical activity (PA) affects fatigue and mental health in cancer survivors favorably, but participation in PA interventions tends to be low. More participants may be reached by home-based PA owing to greater accessibility and self-monitoring. This systematic review therefore evaluated the effects of home-based PA of low to moderate intensity on symptoms of fatigue, depression, and anxiety among cancer survivors. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials. We included investigations of home-based PA interventions in adults treated curatively for cancer and evaluating fatigue, depression, or anxiety as outcomes. We performed a random-effect meta-analysis for the effects of PA interventions on fatigue in the short and long terms. Subgroup analyses were performed for the frequency of counseling. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals are reported. RESULTS: Eleven articles comprising 1066 participants were included: 77% had a history of breast cancer; 14%, ovarian cancer; 4%, colorectal cancer; 4%, prostate cancer; and 1%, "other" cancer (not specified). Concerning the outcomes, nine articles reported on fatigue and two reported on depression or anxiety. Meta-analyses showed a significant effect of home-based PA on fatigue immediately after the intervention (SMD = 0.22 [0.06-0.37]), at 3 months' follow-up (SMD = 0.27 [0.04-0.51]), and at 6-9 months' follow-up (SMD = 0.31 [0.08-0.55]). PA interventions that used frequent counseling were associated with larger improvements in fatigue than those using no or infrequent counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based PA interventions can reduce fatigue among adult cancer survivors for up to 9 months, and frequent counseling may improve the benefits of these interventions.

[Care for mental well-being of cancer patients: Support during and after primary treatment]. / Zorg voor mentaal welbevinden bij patiënt met kanker.

Cancer is associated with sometimes strong emotions. However, emotions are mostly adaptive - they help people adapt to cancer. Adaptive emotions do not need to be treated; instead, emotional support is key. Professional mental health care is indicated only when emotions are no longer adaptive. Oncologists, nurses, and especially general practitioners play an important role in identifying people who qualify for referral to mental health care. Prior mental health problems, a weak social support system, and a relatively stressful disease course or treatment are risk factors for cancer-related emotional problems. Training and the development of professional networks can contribute to optimizing the availability, accessibility and quality of supportive care for mental well-being during and after cancer treatment. In addition, providing good information to patients is important, to enable them to find supportive care.

Improving Care for Patients Living with Prolonged Incurable Cancer.

The number of patients that can no longer be cured but may expect to live with their cancer diagnosis for a substantial period is increasing. These patients with 'prolonged incurable cancer' are often overlooked in research and clinical practice. Patients encounter problems that are traditionally seen from a palliative or survivorship perspective but this may be insufficient to cover the wide range of physical and psychosocial problems that patients with prolonged incurable cancer may encounter. Elements from both fields should, therefore, be delivered concordantly to further optimize care pathways for these patients. Furthermore, to ensure future high-quality care for this important patient population, enhanced clinical awareness, as well as further research, are urgently needed.

Fatigue among Long-Term Breast Cancer Survivors: A Controlled Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is the most common and persistent symptom among women in the first five years after a breast cancer diagnosis. However, long-term prevalence of fatigue, among breast cancer survivors, needs further investigation. AIM: To compare fatigue experienced by long-term breast cancer survivors with that in a reference population and to evaluate the determinants of that fatigue. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional cohort study of 350 breast cancer survivors ≥5 years after diagnosis and a reference population of 350 women matched by age and general practitioner. METHOD: Fatigue was measured using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), and a sum score of >60 (multidimensional fatigue) was the primary outcome. Logistic regression was applied to compare the prevalence of multidimensional fatigue between the survivor and reference populations, adjusted for body mass index (BMI) and for cardiovascular and psychological variables. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were estimated. Logistic regression was applied to evaluate the determinants of multidimensional fatigue among the survivors. RESULTS: Breast cancer survivors (median 10 years after diagnosis), more often experienced multidimensional fatigue than the reference population (26.6% versus 15.4%; OR, 2.0 [95%CI, 1.4-2.9]), even after adjusting for confounders. The odds of multidimensional fatigue were also higher among survivors with symptoms of depression (32.2% versus 2.7%; OR, 17.0 [95%CI, 7.1-40.5]) or anxiety (41.9% versus 10.1%; OR, 6.4 [95%CI, 3.6-11.4]). CONCLUSION: One in four breast cancer survivors experience multidimensional fatigue and fatigue occurs more frequently than in women of the same age and general practitioner. This fatigue appears to be associated with symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Diagnostic accuracy of follow-up tests for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, follow-up of colorectal cancer (CRC) is performed in secondary care. In new models of care, the screening part care could be replaced to primary care. We aimed to synthesise evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used screeners in CRC follow-up applicable in primary care: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), ultrasound and physical examination. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Register and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Studies were included if they provided sufficient data for a 2 × 2 contingency tables. QUADAS-2 was used to assess methodological quality. We performed bivariate random effects meta-analysis, generated a hypothetical cohort, and reported sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: We included 12 studies (n = 3223, median recurrence rate 19.6%). Pooled estimates showed a sensitivity for CEA (≤ 5 µg/l) of 59% [47%-70%] and a specificity of 89% [80%-95%]. Only few studies reported sensitivities and specificities for ultrasound (36-70% and 97-100%, respectively) and clinical examination (23% and 27%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In practice, GPs could perform CEA screening. Radiological examination in a hospital setting should remain part of the surveillance strategy. Personalised algorithms accounting for recurrence risk and changes of CEA-values over time might add to the diagnostic value of CEA in primary care.

How well do healthcare professionals know of the priorities of their older patients regarding treatment outcomes?

OBJECTIVES: For shared decision making, it is crucial to identify patients' priorities regarding health outcomes. Our aim was to study whether healthcare professionals know these priorities. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study we included older patients who had to make a treatment decision, their general practitioners (GPs) and their medical specialists. Agreement between the patients' main health outcome as prioritised by using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) and the perception of the same outcome by their healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were included. Median age was 76 years, 87.4% of patients presented with malignant disease. The majority prioritised maintaining independence (51.7%), followed by extending life (27.6%). The agreement between patients and healthcare professionals was low (GPs 41.7%, kappa 0.067, p = 0.39), medical specialists 40.3%, kappa 0.074, p = 0.33). Positively related to agreement was patient's age > 75, and a longer relation with their patients (for GPs), and the patient having no partner (for medical specialist). Having a malignant disease, dependent living and functional deficits were negatively related to agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals have poor perceptions of their patients' priorities. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To realise patient-centered care, it is crucial to discuss priorities explicitly with all patients.

Prioritisation of treatment goals among older patients with non-curable cancer: the OPTion randomised controlled trial in Dutch primary care.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with cancer often find it difficult to take part in shared decision making. AIM: To assess the utility of the Outcome Prioritisation Tool (OPT), designed to aid discussion with a patient in regards to their treatment goals, to empower patients with cancer through structured conversations about generic treatment goals with GPs. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised controlled trial of 114 Dutch participants recruited between November 2015 and January 2019, aged ≥60 years with non-curable cancer who had to make a treatment decision with an oncologist. The intervention group used the OPT while the control group received care as usual. METHOD: The primary outcome was patient empowerment using the score on the decision self-efficacy (DSE) scale. Secondary outcomes were symptoms measures of fatigue, anxiety, and depression. The experiences of participants were also explored. RESULTS: No effect was found on patient empowerment between the OPT group (n = 48; DSE 86.8; standard deviation [SD] = 18.2) and the control group (n = 58; DSE 84.2; SD = 17.6; P = 0.47). In the OPT group, although statistically non-significant, fewer patients had low empowerment (18.8%, n = 9 versus 24.1%, n = 14; P = 0.50), but they did have statistically significant lower mean anxiety scores (6.0, SD = 4.6 versus 7.6, SD = 4.4; P<0.05) and less mild fatigue (58.8%, n = 30 versus 77.2%, n = 44; P = 0.05). Overall, 44.8% (n = 13) of patients indicated that the OPT-facilitated conversation helped them make a treatment decision, and 31.1% (n = 14) of the GPs reported that they gained new insights from the conversation. CONCLUSION: An OPT-facilitated conversation about generic treatment goals between patients and their GPs is associated with less anxiety and fatigue, but did not show statistically significant improvements in patient empowerment. Adding the OPT to routine care might ensure more patient-tailored care.

A systematic review on the prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety and distress in long-term cancer survivors: Implications for primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Symptoms of depression, anxiety and distress are common in the first years after a cancer diagnosis, but little is known about the prevalence of these symptoms at the long term. The aim of this review was to describe the prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety and distress in long-term cancer survivors, five or more years after diagnosis, and to provide implications for primary care. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in the PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases. Studies were eligible when reporting on the prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety and/or distress in long-term cancer survivors (≥5 years after diagnosis), treated with curative intent. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included. The reported prevalence of depressive symptoms (N = 18) varied from 5.4% to 49.0% (pooled prevalence: 21.0%). For anxiety (N = 7), the prevalence ranged from 3.4% to 43.0% (pooled prevalence: 21.0%). For distress (N = 4), the prevalence ranged from 4.3% to 11.6% (pooled prevalence: 7.0%). CONCLUSION: Prevalences of symptoms of depression, anxiety and distress among long-term survivors of cancer do not fundamentally differ from the general population. This is reassuring for primary care physicians, as they frequently act as the primary physician for long-term survivors whose follow-up schedules in the hospital have been completed.

Effects of Shared Decision Making on Distress and Health Care Utilization Among Patients With Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Lung cancer is associated with significant distress, poor quality of life, and a median prognosis of less than one year. Benefits of shared decision making (SDM) have been described for multiple diseases, either by the use of decisions aids or as part of supportive care interventions. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to summarize the effects of interventions facilitating SDM on distress and health care utilization among patients with lung cancer. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in the CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO databases. Studies were eligible when conducted in a population of patients with lung cancer, evaluated the effects of an intervention that facilitated SDM, and measured distress and/or health care utilization as outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies, detailed in 13 publications, were included: nine randomized trials and three retrospective cohort studies. All studies reported on a supportive care intervention facilitating SDM as part of their intervention. Eight studies described effects on distress, and eight studies measured effects on health care utilization. No effect was found in studies measuring generic distress. Positive effects, in favor of the intervention groups, were observed in studies using anxiety-specific measures (n = 1) or depression-specific measures (n = 3). Evidence for reductions in health care utilization was found in five studies. CONCLUSION: Although not supported by all studies, our findings suggest that facilitating SDM in the context of lung cancer may lead to improved emotional outcomes and less aggressive therapies. Future studies, explicitly studying the effects of SDM by using decision aids, are needed to better elucidate potential benefits.

Possible missed opportunities for diagnosing colorectal cancer in Dutch primary care: a multimethods approach.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is important to achieve better survival. Discriminating symptoms suggestive of CRC from benign conditions is a challenge for GPs because most known 'alarm symptoms' have low predictive values. AIM: To further understand the diagnostic process of CRC in general practice in terms of healthcare use and by analysing factors related to diagnostic intervals. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multimethod approach comprising a historical, prospective registry study and qualitative content analysis. METHOD: Healthcare use in the year before referral for colonoscopy was compared between patients diagnosed with CRC and an age-, sex,- and GP-matched control population. Qualitative content analysis was performed on free texts in electronic patient records from a purposive sample of patients with CRC. RESULTS: Patients with CRC (n = 287) had 41% (25-59%) more face-to-face contacts and 21% (7-37%) more medication prescriptions than controls (n = 828). Forty-six per cent of patients with CRC had two or more contacts for digestive reasons, compared with 12.2% of controls, more often for symptoms than diagnoses. From qualitative analysis two themes emerged: 'possible missed diagnostic opportunities' and 'improvements in diagnostic process unlikely'. Possible missed diagnostic opportunities were related to patients waiting before presenting symptoms, doctors attributing symptoms to comorbid conditions or medication use, or doctors sticking to an initial diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Fewer missed diagnostic opportunities might occur if GPs are aware of pitfalls in diagnosing CRC: the assumption that symptoms are caused by comorbid conditions or medication, or relating complaints to pre-existing medical conditions. GPs also need to be aware that repeated digestive complaints warrant rethinking an earlier diagnosis.

Patients' views on general practitioners' role during treatment and follow-up of colorectal cancer: a qualitative study.

Purpose: To clarify experiences and preferences of patients regarding the current and future role of GPs during treatment and follow-up care of colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: Qualitative semi-structured, audio-recorded, face-to-face interviews in patients' homes in the north of the Netherlands were performed. Patients were sampled purposively on age, gender, time since diagnoses and primary health care use. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically by two independent researchers until saturation was reached. Results: Twenty-two patients were interviewed. GPs played a significant and highly valued role directly after surgery by proactively contacting their patients and offered support in clarification of medical issues, lifestyle advice and care for treatment-related side effects. During follow-up, GPs provided psychosocial support for patients and family members, besides routine health care. Concerning the organization of future follow-up care, most patients expressed a preference for specialist-led services; some said that primary care-led care would be more accessible and less expensive. Conclusion: Although at present patients perceived their GP is involved in CRC care, they would prefer their follow-up care in a hospital setting. If, in line with recent insights, future follow-up care might become more relying on testing for markers instead of imaging, there may be scope for incorporating this care in current GP routines.