Ietje Perfors

67 Findings if applicable to study: 1. Uptake of intervention 2. Healthcare use 3. Patient-related outcomes 4. GP-related outcomes Uptake of intervention 27.3% of 202 responding GPs had seen the PHR. Healthcare use (intervention vs control) Contact with care providers in 3 months follow-up; • Visit GP 78% vs 85%. • Visited secondary care clinics 95% vs 95%. Patient-related outcomes (intervention vs control) - Satisfaction communication and participation in care mean ±SD (scale 1-5): 3.83±0.59 vs 3.80±0.59, (95% CI 0.09 to 0.15). - Confidence in facing future aspects of cancer: 62% vs 71%, p = 0.05. - Quality of life mean global scores: 66.8±24.2 vs 65.3±23.7. GP-related outcome (seen PHR vs not seen PHR) - GP agrees that patients should have full access to their records 57% vs 57%. Uptake of intervention Proactivity of GP intervention vs control: GP reported 61.2% vs 55.2% p=0.10, patient reported 60.1% vs 51.9% p=0.15. Patient-related outcomes (intervention vs control) - Quality of life; mean difference (95%CI); • at 6 months 1.25 (-2.4 to 4.9). • at 14 months -0.71 (-4.3 to 2.8). - Psychological distress, mean difference (95%CI); -0.68 (-4.3 to 3.0). - Patient participation on rehabilitation services, OR adj (95%CI); 1.0 (0.7 to 1.5). - Patient satisfaction with: • GP on five dimensions, OR adj (95%CI) All NS; Doctor–patient relationship 0.94 (0.3 to-2.47), Medical care 1.2 (0.5 to 3.0), Information and support 1.6 (0.6 to 4.1), Organisation of care 1.3 (0.8-2.1), GP’s accessibility 1.2 (0.6 to 2.3). • GP support during the cancer course, OR adj (95%CI); 1.14 (0.7 to 1.8). - Proactivity GP and rehabilitation activity patient, OR adj (95%CI); 1.96 (1.2 to 3.3). GP-related outcomes (intervention vs control) - Overall satisfaction, OR adj (95% CI); 1.10 (0.47 to 2.56). 3