Study protocol of the BLANKET trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial on the (cost-) effectiveness of a primary care intervention for fear of cancer recurrence in cancer survivors.

INTRODUCTION: Many successfully treated patients with cancer suffer from fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), affecting their quality of life and their physical, emotional, cognitive and social functioning. Effective psychological interventions for FCR exist but are not widely available, as they are typically offered by specialised psycho-oncology professionals and institutes. Concurrently, the role of primary care in cancer and survivorship care is increasing. Therefore, there could be a role for general practitioners (GPs) and mental health workers (MHWs) working in primary care in supporting patients with FCR. In the current study, the effectiveness of a primary care delivered FCR intervention will be evaluated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-armed cluster randomised trial will be conducted. The primary outcome will be FCR severity; secondary outcomes will be FCR-related distress, healthcare uptake and healthcare costs. Primary care practices in the Netherlands will be invited to participate in the study. Participating practices will be stratified by size and socioeconomic status and randomised. In the control arm, practices will provide care as usual. In the intervention arm, practices will offer the cognitive-behavioural FCR intervention that is being studied, which consists of an intake with the GP and five sessions with the MHW. Patients who have finished successful curative treatment for cancer between 3 months and 10 years ago will be invited to participate in the study by invitation letter from their GPs. Participating patients will fill out questionnaires at baseline, after 3 months and after 12 months. Data on healthcare use will be collected from their electronic health records. Qualitative interviews are held at T1 with patients and practitioners in the intervention group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Research Ethics Committee (METC) Utrecht has reviewed the study in accordance with the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) and other applicable Dutch and European regulations. Based on the requirements of the WMO, the METC Utrecht has issued an approval of the above-mentioned study. Any protocol amendments will be communicated to all relevant parties. Written consent is obtained from study participants. Results will be dispersed through peer-reviewed publications and scientific presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL7573 in the Netherlands Trial Register on 25-02-2019.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nationwide campaigns for awareness and case finding of hepatitis C targeted at people who inject drugs and the general population in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus infection (HCV) is a serious, but underdiagnosed disease that can generally be treated successfully. Therefore, a nationwide HCV awareness campaign was implemented in the Netherlands targeting people who inject drugs (PWID) in addiction care ('PWID intervention') and high-risk groups in the general population ('public intervention'). The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions used in this campaign. METHODS: For the 'PWID' intervention, all addiction care centres in the Netherlands provided proactive individual HCV consultation and testing. The 'public intervention' consisted of health education through mass media and instruction of health care professionals. A Markov chain model was used to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, cost per QALY gained). We included a 'DAA treatment' scenario to estimate the effect of these treatment strategies on cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The 'PWID intervention' identified 257 additional HCV-carriers. The ICER was €9056 (95% CI: €6043-€13,523) when compared to 'no intervention'. The 'public intervention' identified 38 additional HCV-carriers. The ICER was €18,421 (95% CI: €7376-€25,490,119) when compared to 'no intervention'. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability that the 'PWID intervention' was cost-effective was 100%. It also showed a probability of 34% that the 'public intervention' did not exceed the Dutch threshold for cost-effectiveness (€20,000). New treatment regimens are likely to improve cost-effectiveness of this strategy. CONCLUSION: In a nationwide HCV awareness and case finding campaign, the intervention targeting PWID was effective and cost-effective. An intervention targeting risk groups in the general population showed only a modest effect and is therefore less likely to be cost-effective.