Ietje Perfors

148 Chapter 6 Subgroup analyses suggest a non-significant, but potentially relevant higher satisfactionwithoverall care inpatientswithcolorectal cancer inthe intervention group compared to the control group (mean difference 9.9 (95% CI-3.8;23.6), AppendixC). Interventionpatientswith colorectal cancerwere less satisfiedwith the GP as compared to the control group. Also, patients with ≥ 1 comorbidities, patients 65 years or younger and female patients scored lower on several GP satisfaction subscales (Appendix C). In contrast, nurse satisfaction score was lower among patients with colorectal cancer and breast cancer compared to the other cancer types (gynaecologic cancer, lung cancer ormelanoma), in patients without comorbidities, in patients above the 65 years and female patients. Healthcare utilisation The intervention group had a significantly higher “risk” of having contact with the GP practice (RR: 1.3 (95%CI 1.0;1.7) p=0.03) and ED visits (RR: 1.7 (95% CI 1.0;2.8) p=0.04) compared to the control group (Table 6). After adjustment for co-morbidity, RRs were 1.3 (95% CI 0.994;1.603) p=0.056 for contact with GP practice and 1,9 (95%CI 1.01;3.45) p=0.045 for ED visits. No other significant differences in use of hospital or paramedical care were found between the study groups (Table 6 & 7). In the year after inclusion, the intervention group had amedian number of 7 (IQR 4.5;12.0) GP contacts and the control group had 6 (IQR 4.0;9.5) GP contacts (Table 6). The median number of contact moments in hospital the year after inclusion was 49 (IQR 27.5;88.5) in the intervention group and 50 (IQR 24.5;78.5) in the control group. Secondary outcomes No significant between-group differences were found for quality of life and the subscales. Between-groupdifferenceswere-1.2 (95%CI -7.6;5.3) forGlobal Quality of life and -0.4 (95% CI -5.4;4.6) on the Summary scale (Table 8). Also, mental healthwas not different between groups (-0.6 (95%CI -6.0; 4.9) (Table 9). Self-efficacy was also not significantly different between the study groups. At T5, the between-group differences were 0.3 (95% CI -1.0;1.5) for General Self-Efficacy, -0.6 (95%CI -1.4;0.3) for Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions and -0.0 (95% CI -1.6;1.6) for Mastery level (Table 9).