46
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Improving care after colon cancer treatment in The Netherlands, personalised care to enhance quality of life (I CARE study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          It is expected that in 2020 more than 17,000 cases of colorectal cancer will be diagnosed in The Netherlands. To date, patients are included in a surgeon-led follow-up programme whose main focus is recurrence detection. However, patients often experience multiple physical and psychosocial problems. Currently, these problems are not always encountered. More care by a generalist is suggested as a solution. Furthermore, patients prefer to undergo rehabilitation in their own environment and to be more involved in their own health care. eHealth applications might enhance this. Oncokompas 2.0 is an online self-management application which facilitates access to supportive care. This study aims to evaluate primary care follow-up and aftercare in comparison with secondary care follow-up and aftercare for patients with colon cancer. Second, the added value of Oncokompas 2.0 to care will be assessed.

          Methods/Design

          This is a multi-centre 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial with a calculated sample size of 300 patients. Patients with stage I, II, or III colon carcinoma are eligible. Patients will be randomly assigned in four groups: (1) usual follow-up visits and aftercare provided in secondary care, (2) usual follow-up visits and aftercare provided in secondary care with additional use of Oncokompas 2.0, (3) follow-up and aftercare in primary care, and (4) follow-up and aftercare in primary care with additional use of Oncokompas 2.0. The primary outcome is quality of life. Secondary outcomes include physical outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, number of investigations, referrals and related communication between secondary and primary care, (time of) recurrence detection and protocol adherence, attention to preventive care, self-management of patients, patient satisfaction, and preference of care at the end of the trial. Data collection will be done by questionnaires and extractions from electronic medical records.

          Discussion

          The results of this study will provide evidence, which has been scarce to date, on prominent general practitioner involvement in care for colon cancer patients after initial treatment. Also, it evaluates the efficacy of an eHealth application to enhance patient empowerment.

          Dutch trial register

          NTR4860 (registered on 2 October 2014)

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure.

          The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is a 22-item measure that assesses patient knowledge, skill, and confidence for self-management. The measure was developed using Rasch analyses and is an interval level, unidimensional, Guttman-like measure. The current analysis is aimed at reducing the number of items in the measure while maintaining adequate precision. We relied on an iterative use of Rasch analysis to identify items that could be eliminated without loss of significant precision and reliability. With each item deletion, the item scale locations were recalibrated and the person reliability evaluated to check if and how much of a decline in precision of measurement resulted from the deletion of the item. The data used in the analysis were the same data used in the development of the original 22-item measure. These data were collected in 2003 via a telephone survey of 1,515 randomly selected adults. Principal Findings. The analysis yielded a 13-item measure that has psychometric properties similar to the original 22-item version. The scores for the 13-item measure range in value from 38.6 to 53.0 (on a theoretical 0-100 point scale). The range of values is essentially unchanged from the original 22-item version. Subgroup analysis suggests that there is a slight loss of precision with some subgroups. The results of the analysis indicate that the shortened 13-item version is both reliable and valid.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores.

            To determine the significance to patients of changes in health-related quality-of-life (HLQ) scores assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). A subjective significance questionnaire (SSQ), which asks patients about perceived changes in physical, emotional, and social functioning and in global quality of life (global QL) and the QLQ-C30 were completed by patients who received chemotherapy for either breast cancer or small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). In the SSQ, patients rated their perception of change since the last time they completed the QLQ-C30 using a 7-category scale that ranged from "much worse" through "no change" to "much better." For each category of change in the SSQ, the corresponding differences were calculated in QLQ-C30 mean scores and effect sizes were determined. For patients who indicated "no change" in the SSQ, the mean change in scores in the corresponding QLQ-C30 domains was not significantly different from 0. For patients who indicated "a little" change either for better or for worse, the mean change in scores was about 5 to 10; for "moderate" change, about 10 to 20; and for "very much" change, greater than 20. Effect sizes increased in concordance with increasing changes in SSQ ratings and QLQ-C30 scores. The significance of changes in QLQ-C30 scores can be interpreted in terms of small, moderate, or large changes in quality of life as reported by patients in the SSQ. The magnitude of these changes also can be used to calculate the sample sizes required to detect a specified change in clinical trials.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed?

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                l.a.duineveld@amc.uva.nl
                t.wieldraaijer@amc.uva.nl
                k.m.vanaselt@amc.uva.nl
                i.c.nugteren@amc.uva.nl
                donkpas@online.nl
                avandeven@flevoziekenhuis.nl
                a.smits@antoniusziekenhuis.nl
                avangeloven@tergooi.nl
                w.a.bemelman@amc.uva.nl
                fbeverdam@sfvg.nl
                w.vantets@slaz.nl
                m.j.p.m.govaert@westfriesgasthuis.nl
                j.e.bosmans@vu.nl
                im.verdonck@vumc.nl
                c.vanuden@vumc.nl
                h.c.vanweert@amc.uva.nl
                j.wind@amc.uva.nl
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                26 June 2015
                26 June 2015
                2015
                : 16
                : 284
                Affiliations
                [ ]Academic Medical Centre, Department of Primary Care, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Surgery, OLVG, Oosterpark 9, 1091, AC Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Surgery, Flevoziekenhuis, Hospitaalweg 1, 1315, RA Almere, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, 3435, CM Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Surgery, Tergooi Hospital, Van Riebeeckweg 212, 1213, XZ Hilversum, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Surgery, Vlietland Hospital, Vlietlandplein 2, 3118, JH Schiedam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Surgery, St Lucas Andreas Hospital, Jan Tooropstraat 164, 1061, AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Surgery, Westfriesgasthuis, Maelsonstraat 3, 1624, NP Hoorn, The Netherlands
                [ ]VU University Medical Centre, Department of Health Sciences and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085-1087, 1081, HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University, van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081, BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                Article
                798
                10.1186/s13063-015-0798-7
                4499213
                26112050
                91944762-333c-4ec5-a5bc-a6474a4b8115
                © Duineveld et al. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 9 March 2015
                : 8 June 2015
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                follow-up,colon carcinoma,primary care,secondary care,oncology,general practitioner,randomised controlled trial,aftercare,ehealth

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content124

                Cited by11

                Most referenced authors461