Ietje Perfors

71 Findings if applicable to study: 1. Uptake of intervention 2. Healthcare use 3. Patient-related outcomes 4. GP-related outcomes Uptake of intervention Not reported. Healthcare use (intervention vs control) - Emergency department presentations: no significant between-group differences were observed. - Average number of GP visits 2.79 vs 1.61, p < 0.001. Patient-related outcomes (intervention vs control) Patient perception of care; - GP could help in ways specialist could not: 57% vs 19% ( χ ² = 11.5; p = 0.002). - Patient opinion concerning PHR/GP visit after CT course: • 81% considered PHR useful. • 35% considered visit inconvenient. Depression; Geometric mean score (95%CI) • at baseline: 4.09 (3.31 to 4.86) vs 3.66 (2.92 to 4.40). • after treatment: 4.04 (3.25 to 4.83) vs 4.72 (3.72 to 5.72) p = 0.04 for comparison of groups over time. Anxiety; Geometric mean score (95%CI) • at baseline: 8.05 (6.71 to 9.40) vs 7.91 (6.50 to 9.32). • after treatment: 5.49 (4.54 to 6.43) vs 5.24 (4.26 to 6.22) p = 0.80 for comparison of groups over time. - Subgroup analysis for number of clinically anxious patients • at baseline: 14 patients with CA vs 11 patients with CA. • after treatment: 3 patients with CA vs 5 patients with CA. Decline: intervention p=0.002; control p=0.014. Coping; Geometric mean difference over time -0.7 vs 0.1 p=0.35. Empowerment; Geometric mean difference over time 0.9 vs 0.9 p=0.47. GP-related outcome (intervention vs control) - GPs satisfied with communication: 82% vs 95%. - GP confidence in managing: • side effects 85% vs 71% (p =0.45). • psychological issues 97% vs 81% (p= 0.04). Uptake of intervention 8 of the 31 interviewed GPs recall seeing the Information Card. Healthcare use (intervention vs control) - Patient initiated contact; • with GP ≥1 contact in 71% vs 73%, p = 0.95. • district nurses no contact in 24% in both groups. GP-related outcome (intervention) - Recommending information card 7 of 8 GPs who recall intervention 3