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.

Correspondence between primary and secondary care about patients with cancer: A qualitative mixed-methods analysis.

Cancer care is complex and involves many different healthcare providers, especially during diagnosis and initial treatment, and it has been reported that both general practitioners and oncology specialists experience difficulties with interdisciplinary communication. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore information sharing between primary and secondary care for patients with lung, breast or colorectal cancer. A qualitative content analysis of 50 medical files (419 documents) was performed, which identified 70 correspondence-related items. Six main topics were identified in most referral letters from primary to secondary care, but it was particularly notable that highly relevant information regarding the past medical history was often mixed with less relevant information. To lesser extents, the same held true for the medication list and presenting history. In the letters from specialists, nine topics were identified in most letters. Although information about actual treatment was always present, only limited detail, if any, was given about the intent of the treatment (curative or palliative) or the treatment alternatives. Interviews with nine healthcare providers confirmed these issues. These findings indicate that neither the initial referral nor the specialist correspondence is tailored to the needs of the recipient.

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.

Patients' preferences for post-treatment breast cancer follow-up in primary care vs. secondary care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' preferences for follow-up in primary care vs. secondary care. METHODS: A cross-sectional design was employed, involving semi-structured interviews with 70 female patients with a history of early-stage breast cancer. Using descriptive content analysis, interview transcripts were analysed independently and thematically by two researchers. FINDINGS: Patients expressed the strongest preference for annual visits (31/68), a schedule with a decreasing frequency over time (27/68), and follow-up > 10 years, including lifelong follow-up (20/64). The majority (56/61) preferred to receive follow-up care from the same care provider over time, for reasons related to a personal doctor-patient relationship and the physician's knowledge of the patient's history. About 75% (43/56) preferred specialist follow-up to other follow-up models. However, primary care-based follow-up would be accepted by 57% (39/68) provided that there is good communication between GPs and specialists, and sufficient knowledge among GPs about follow-up. Perceived benefits of primary care-based follow-up referred to the personal nature of the GP-patient relationship and the easy access to primary care. Perceived barriers included limited oncology knowledge and skills, time available, motivation among GPs to provide follow-up care and patients' confidence with the present specialist follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the patients were open to primary care-based follow-up. Patients' confidence with this follow-up model may increase by using survivorship care plans to facilitate communication across the primary/secondary interface and with patients. Training GPs to improve their oncology knowledge and skills might also increase patients' confidence.

Increased primary health care use in the first year after colorectal cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: The view that the general practitioner (GP) should be more involved during the curative treatment of cancer is gaining support. This study aimed to assess the current role of the GP during treatment of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). DESIGN: Historical prospective study, using primary care data from two cohorts. SETTING: Registration Network Groningen (RNG) consisting of 18 GPs in three group practices with a dynamic population of about 30,000 patients. SUBJECTS: Patients who underwent curative treatment for CRC (n = 124) and matched primary care patients without CRC (reference population; n = 358). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary healthcare use in the period 1998-2009. FINDINGS: Patients with CRC had higher primary healthcare use in the year after diagnosis compared with the reference population. After correction for age, gender, and consultation behaviour, CRC patients had 54% (range 23-92%) more face-to-face contacts, 68% (range 36-108%) more drug prescriptions, and 35% (range -4-90%) more referrals compared with reference patients. Patients consulted their GP more often for reasons related to anaemia, abdominal pain, constipation, skin problems, and urinary infections. GPs also prescribed more acid reflux drugs, laxatives, anti-anaemic preparations, analgesics, and psycholeptics for CRC patients. CONCLUSIONS: The GP plays a significant role in the year after CRC diagnosis. This role may be associated with treatment-related side effects and psychological problems. Formal guidelines on the involvement of the GP during CRC treatment might ensure more effective allocation and communication of care between primary and secondary healthcare services.

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.

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.

Increased primary healthcare utilisation among women with a history of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the current role of the general practitioner (GP) in breast cancer follow-up care. This study explores primary healthcare use in the period after completion of primary breast cancer treatment. METHODS: A total of 336 women with a history of early-stage breast cancer treated with curative intent were identified in the primary care database of the Registration Network Groningen (RNG) (1998-2007) and matched with a reference population of 983 women without breast cancer on birth year and GP. RESULTS: Over the entire follow-up period (starting 1 year post-diagnosis), the median numbers of face-to-face contacts, drug prescriptions, and referrals in the patient group were significantly higher than those in the reference group: 4.0 vs. 3.2/year, 12.3 vs. 8.4/year, and 0.4 vs. 0.3/year, Mann-Whitney (M-W) test p < 0.001 for all differences. At least one annual face-to-face contact was observed for 96.7 % of patients and 92.9 % of women from the reference population (Chi-square test p = 0.011). More patients than women from the reference population had face-to-face contacts for reasons related to breast cancer or were prescribed hormone antagonists and aromatase inhibitors to treat breast cancer. The main predictor of higher rates of face-to-face contacts and drug prescriptions was a higher age at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows increased primary healthcare utilisation among women with a history of breast cancer, especially among the elderly. When follow-up is transferred to the primary care setting, new responsibilities of GPs might be incorporated into existing primary healthcare delivery.

Do patient and practice characteristics confound age-group differences in preferences for general practice care? A quantitative study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research showed inconsistent results regarding the relationship between the age of patients and preference statements regarding GP care. This study investigates whether elderly patients have different preference scores and ranking orders concerning 58 preference statements for GP care than younger patients. Moreover, this study examines whether patient characteristics and practice location may confound the relationship between age and the categorisation of a preference score as very important. METHODS: Data of the Consumer Quality Index GP Care were used, which were collected in 32 general practices in The Netherlands. The rank order and preference score were calculated for 58 preference statements for four age groups (0-30, 31-50, 51-74, 75 years and older). Using chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses, it was investigated whether a significant relationship between age and preference score was confounded by patient characteristics and practice location. RESULTS: Elderly patients did not have a significant different ranking order for the preference statements than the other three age groups (r = 0.0193; p = 0.41). However, in 53% of the statements significant differences were found in preference score between the four age groups. Elderly patients categorized significantly less preference statements as 'very important'. In most cases, the significant relationships were not confounded by gender, education, perceived health, the number of GP contacts and location of the GP practice. CONCLUSION: The preferences of elderly patients for GP care concern the same items as younger patients. However, their preferences are less strong, which cannot be ascribed to gender, education, perceived health, the number of GP contacts and practice location.

Out-of-hours medical care for terminally ill patients: A survey of availability and preferences of general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care is one of the core values of good medical care for terminally ill patients. The availability of one's own general practitioner (GP) out of hours is regarded as important for personal continuity. Few data are available about the extent of out-of-hours care given by GPs to their terminally ill patients. AIM: The objective of this study was to determine to which level GPs are available out of hours for their own terminally ill patients and to elicit what factors are relevant to this availability. DESIGN AND SETTING: The research questions were investigated using a cross-sectional study of Dutch GPs. A questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 691 Dutch GPs. RESULTS: The response rate was 47% (n = 327). Of the respondents, 86% was willing to provide out-of-hours care for their own terminally ill patients. These figures are higher than reported in previous studies. This study shows that out-of-hours availability correlates most strongly with the GPs' perception of duties of care. Availability is negatively influenced if the GP is in a salaried job, if he or she works in a city based practice, or if home is far from the practice. A correlation between age, sex, and experience of GPs and availability for out-of- hours care for their terminally ill patients was not confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: The reported out-of-hours availability of GPs for terminally ill patients is still high. GPs' perception of their duty of care might change in the next generations, and the increasing number of salaried GPs, living far from their practice, might threaten out-of-hours availability for terminally ill patients. GPs' perception of their duty of care might change in the next generations, and the increasing number of salaried GPs living far from their practice might threaten out-of-hours availability for terminally ill patients.

COPD exacerbations in general practice: variability in oral prednisolone courses.

BACKGROUND: The use of oral corticosteroids as treatment of COPD exacerbations in primary care is well established and evidence-based. However, the most appropriate dosage regimen has not been determined and remains controversial. Corticosteroid therapy is associated with a number of undesirable side effects, including hyperglycaemias, so differences in prescribing might be relevant. This study examines the differences between GPs in dosage and duration of prednisolone treatment in patients with a COPD exacerbation. It also investigates the number of general practitioners (GPs) who adjust their treatment according to the presence of diabetic co-morbidity. METHODS: Cross-sectional study among 219 GPs and 25 GPs in training, located in the Northern part of the Netherlands. RESULTS: The response rate was 69%. Nearly every GP prescribed a continuous dose of prednisolone 30 mg per day. Among GPs there were substantial differences in treatment duration. GPs prescribed courses of five, seven, ten, or fourteen days. A course of seven days was most common. The duration of treatment depended on exacerbation and disease severity. A course of five days was especially prescribed in case of a less severe exacerbation. In a more severe exacerbation duration of seven to fourteen days was more common. Hardly any GP adjusted treatment to the presence of diabetic co-morbidity. CONCLUSION: Under normal conditions GPs prescribe prednisolone quite uniformly, within the range of the current Dutch guidelines. There is insufficient guidance regarding how to adjust corticosteroid treatment to exacerbation severity, disease severity and the presence of diabetic co-morbidity. Under these circumstances, there is a substantial variation in treatment duration.

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.

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.

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.

Adherence and Concordance between Serious Illness Care Planning Conversations and Oncology Clinician Documentation among Patients with Advanced Cancer.

Background: Serious illness conversations are part of advance care planning (ACP) and focus on prognosis, values, and goals in patients who are seriously ill. To be maximally effective, such conversations must be documented accurately and be easily accessible. Objectives: The two coprimary objectives of the study were to assess concordance between written documentation and recorded audiotaped conversations, and to evaluate adherence to the Serious Illness Conversation Guide questions. Methods: Data were obtained as part of a trial in patients with advanced cancer. Clinicians were trained to use a guide to conduct and document serious illness conversations. Conversations were audiotaped. Two researchers independently compared audiorecordings with the corresponding documentation in an electronic health record (EHR) template and free-text progress notes, and rated the degree of concordance and adherence. Results: We reviewed a total of 25 audiorecordings. Clinicians addressed 87% of the conversation guide elements. Prognosis was discussed least frequently, only in 55% of the patients who wanted that information. Documentation was fully concordant with the conversation 43% of the time. Concordance was best when documenting family matters and goals, and least frequently concordant when documenting prognostic communication. Most conversations (64%) were documented in the template, a minority (28%) only in progress notes and two conversations (8%) were not documented. Concordance was better when the template was used (62% vs. 28%). Conclusion: Clinicians adhered well to the conversation guide. However, key information elicited was documented and fully concordant less than half the time. Greater concordance was observed when clinicians used a prespecified template. The combined use of a guide and EHR template holds promise for ACP conversations.

Characteristics of general practice care: what do senior citizens value? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In view of the increasing number of senior citizens in our society who are likely to consult their GP with age-related health problems, it is important to identify and understand the preferences of this group in relation to the non-medical attributes of GP care. The aim of this study is to improve our understanding about preferences of this group of patients in relation to non-medical attributes of primary health care. This may help to develop strategies to improve the quality of care that senior citizens receive from their GP. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (N = 13) with senior citizens (65-91 years) in a judgement sample were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The analysis was conducted according to qualitative research methodology and the frame work method. RESULTS: Continuity of care providers, i.e. GP and practice nurses, GPs' expertise, trust, free choice of GP and a kind open attitude were highly valued. Accessibility by phone did not meet the expectations of the interviewees. The interviewees had difficulties with the GP out-of-office hours services. Spontaneous home visits were appreciated by some, but rejected by others. They preferred to receive verbal information rather than collecting information from leaflets. Distance to the practice and continuity of caregiver seemed to conflict for respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Preferences change in the process of ageing and growing health problems. GPs and their co-workers should be also aware of the changing needs of the elderly regarding non-medical attributes of GP care. Meeting their needs regarding non-medical attributes of primary health care is important to improve the quality of care.

DOC questionnaire: measuring how GPs and medical specialists rate collaboration.

PURPOSE: This paper aims to assess the validity of a questionnaire aimed at assessing how general practitioners (GPs) and specialists rate collaboration. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Primary data were collected in The Netherlands during March to September 2006. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 259 GPs and 232 specialists. Participants were randomly selected from The Netherlands Medical Address Book. Specialists rarely contacting a GP were not invited to participate. FINDINGS: Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the questionnaire, consisting of 20 items, measured five domains: organisation; communication; professional expertise; image; and knowing each other. Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.64 to 0.83 indicating sufficient internal consistency. Correlation coefficients between domains were all < 0.4. All but "communication" clearly produced distinguishing scores for different respondent groups. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: This study shows that the doctors' opinions on collaboration (DOC) questionnaire is valid and that it may have the potential to give feedback to both medical professionals and policy makers. Such feedback creates an opportunity to improve collaboration. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The DOC questionnaire is a useful instrument for assessing collaboration among GPs and specialists. It can provide feedback to both medical professionals and policy makers. Such feedback creates an opportunity to improve collaboration.

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.