Ietje Perfors

156 Chapter 6 Table 9. T5 Secondary outcomes – Mental health and Self-efficacy. Intervention N= 59 mean (SD) Control N=69 mean (SD) Mean difference 1 (95% CI) MHI-5 (>60 score indicate mentally healthy) 0-100 scale. 75.1 (15.7) 73.6 (17.2) -0.6 (-6.0; 4.9) Pearlin-Schooler Mastery scale (higher scores indicate better performance) 5-35 scale. 25.0 (4.9) 24.8 (4.2) -0.0 (-1.6;1.6) GSE (higher scores indicate better performance) 10-40 scale. 32.3 (4.1) 31.3 (4.2) 0.3 (-1.0;1.5) PEPPI (higher scores indicate better performance) 5-25 scale. 20.7 (3.3) 21.4 (3.0) -0.6 (-1.4;0.3) 1 Adjusted for stratification factors and baseline. Discussion All cancer patients in our study reported high satisfaction with care, independent whether they received specialist care alone or additional care from a GP and home care oncology nurse. Although the GRIP intervention was designed to improve primary care involvement, the ability tomeasure its effectiveness was limited because it was often not implemented as intended: 82% of the TOCs were not planned before the treatment decision and 46% of patients receiving HON care did not continue after the end of their treatment. In our trial, structured involvement of primary care during cancer treatment did not result in increased patient satisfaction, nor did it improve quality of life, mental health or self-efficacy. Additional guidance from primary care resulted in slightly more ED visits. Patients seem well motivated to actively involve their primary care team, since the intervention uptake was relatively high; 81% of patients in the intervention group scheduled a TOC and 68% had HON consultations. Other studies investigating primary care involvement reported a lower uptake, varying from 27% to 60%. 26–28 The high uptake of primary care involvement