Reasons for not reaching or using web-based self-management applications, and the use and evaluation of Oncokompas among cancer survivors, in the context of a randomised controlled trial

Introduction: The web-based self-management application Oncokompas was developed to support cancer survivors to monitor health-related quality of life and symptoms (Measure) and to provide tailored information (Learn) and supportive care options (Act). In a previously reported randomised controlled trial (RCT), 68% of 655 recruited survivors were eligible, and of those 45% participated in the RCT. Among participants of the RCT that were randomised to the intervention group, 52% used Oncokompas as intended. The aim of this study was to explore reasons for not participating in the RCT, and reasons for not using Oncokompas among non-users, and the use and evaluation of Oncokompas among users. Methods: Reasons for not participating were assessed with a study-specific questionnaire among 243 survivors who declined participation. Usage was investigated among 320 participants randomised to the intervention group of the RCT via system data and a study-specific questionnaire that was assessed during the 1 week follow-up (T1) assessment. Results: Main reasons for not participating were not interested in participation in scientific research (40%) and not interested in scientific research and Oncokompas (28%). Main reasons for not being interested in Oncokompas were wanting to leave the period of being ill behind (29%), no symptom burden (23%), or lacking internet skills (18%). Out of the 320 participants in the intervention group 167 (52%) used Oncokompas as intended. Among 72 non-users, main reasons for not using Oncokompas were no symptom burden (32%) or lack of time (26%). Among 248 survivors that activated their account, satisfaction and user-friendliness were rated with a 7 (scale 0–10). Within 3 (IQR 1–4) sessions, users selected 32 (IQR 6–37) topics. Main reasons for not using healthcare options in Act were that the information in Learn was already sufficient (44%) or no supportive care needs (32%). Discussion: Main reasons for not reaching or using Oncokompas were no symptom burden, no supportive care needs, or lack of time. Users selected many cancer-generic and tumour-specific topics to address, indicating added value of the wide range of available topics

Variation in head and neck cancer care in the Netherlands A retrospective cohort evaluation of incidence, treatment and outcome: A retrospective cohort evaluation of incidence, treatment and outcome

BACKGROUND: To explore variation in numbers and treatment between hospitals that treat head and neck cancer (HNC) in the Netherlands. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics were collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, while histopathological features were obtained by linkage to the national pathology record register PALGA. Inter-hospital variation in volume, stage, treatment, pathologically confirmed loco-regional recurrence and overall survival rate was evaluated by tumor site. RESULTS: In total, 2094 newly diagnosed patients were included, ranging from 65 to 417 patients in participating hospitals treating HNC in 2008. Oral cavity cancer was mainly treated by surgery only, ranging from 46 to 82% per hospital, while the proportion of surgery with (chemo)radiotherapy ranged from 18 to 40%. Increasing age, male sex, and high stage were associated with a higher hazard of dying. In oropharynx cancer, the use of (chemo)radiotherapy varied from 31 to 82% between hospitals. We found an indication that higher volume was associated with a lower overall hazard of dying for the total group, but not by subsite. Low numbers, e.g. for salivary gland, nasopharynx, nasal cavity and paranasal sinus, did not permit all desired analyses. CONCLUSION: This study revealed significant interhospital variation in numbers and treatment of especially oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancer. This study is limited because we had to rely on data recorded in the past for a different purpose. To understand whether this variation is unwanted, future research should be based on prospectively collected data, including detailed information on recurrences, additional case-mix information and cause of death

Variation in head and neck cancer care in the Netherlands : A retrospective cohort evaluation of incidence, treatment and outcome

BACKGROUND: To explore variation in numbers and treatment between hospitals that treat head and neck cancer (HNC) in the Netherlands. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics were collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, while histopathological features were obtained by linkage to the national pathology record register PALGA. Inter-hospital variation in volume, stage, treatment, pathologically confirmed loco-regional recurrence and overall survival rate was evaluated by tumor site. RESULTS: In total, 2094 newly diagnosed patients were included, ranging from 65 to 417 patients in participating hospitals treating HNC in 2008. Oral cavity cancer was mainly treated by surgery only, ranging from 46 to 82% per hospital, while the proportion of surgery with (chemo)radiotherapy ranged from 18 to 40%. Increasing age, male sex, and high stage were associated with a higher hazard of dying. In oropharynx cancer, the use of (chemo)radiotherapy varied from 31 to 82% between hospitals. We found an indication that higher volume was associated with a lower overall hazard of dying for the total group, but not by subsite. Low numbers, e.g. for salivary gland, nasopharynx, nasal cavity and paranasal sinus, did not permit all desired analyses. CONCLUSION: This study revealed significant interhospital variation in numbers and treatment of especially oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancer. This study is limited because we had to rely on data recorded in the past for a different purpose. To understand whether this variation is unwanted, future research should be based on prospectively collected data, including detailed information on recurrences, additional case-mix information and cause of death

Prototype Application for the Treatment of Achilles Tendinopathy

IntroductionAdequate treatment of Achilles tendinopathy (AT) consists of patient education, load management advice and calf muscle strengthening exercises. mHealth comprises the delivery of healthcare by mobile devices and is expected to be beneficial in the treatment of AT by including motivational features in the application, as well as providing features for adequate self-management. Therefore, the aim of this project is to develop a prototype application for the combined treatment of AT.MethodsTo develop a user-centered prototype application, multiple steps were taken to develop the final prototype of this project. Exploratory literature and user research was done, after which patient scenarios were written and interviews with patient

Reasons for not reaching or using web-based self-management applications, and the use and evaluation of Oncokompas among cancer survivors, in the context of a randomised controlled trial

Introduction:  The web-based self-management application Oncokompas was developed to support cancer survi-vors to monitor health-related quality of life and symptoms (Measure) and to provide tailored information (Learn) and supportive care options (Act). In a previously reported randomised controlled trial (RCT), 68% of 655 recruited survivors were eligible, and of those 45% participated in the RCT. Among participants of the RCT that were randomised to the intervention group, 52% used Oncokompas as intended. The aim of this study was to explore reasons for not participating in the RCT, and reasons for not using Oncokompas among non-users, and the use and evaluation of Oncokompas among users

Page 79

BACKGROUND: Oncokompas is a web-based self-management application that supports cancer survivors to monitor their health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms, and to obtain personalised feedback and tailored options for supportive care. In a large randomised controlled trial among survivors of head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer and (non-)Hodgkin lymphoma, Oncokompas proved to improve HRQOL, and to reduce several tumour-specific symptoms. Effect sizes were however small, and no effect was observed on the primary outcome patient activation. Therefore, this study aims to explore which subgroups of cancer survivors may especially benefit from Oncokompas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer survivors (nn=n625) were randomly assigned to the intervention group (access to Oncokompas, nn=n320) or control group (6nmonths waiting list, nn=n305). Outcome measures were HRQOL, tumour-specific symptoms, and patient activation. Potential moderators included socio-demographic (sex, age, marital status, education, employment), clinical (tumour type, stage, time since diagnosis, treatment modality, comorbidities), and personal factors (self-efficacy, personal control, health literacy, Internet use), and patient activation, mental adjustment to cancer, HRQOL, symptoms, and need for supportive care, measured at baseline. Linear mixed models were performed to investigate potential moderators. RESULTS: The intervention effect on HRQOL was the largest among cancer survivors with low to moderate self-efficacy, and among those with high personal control and those with high health literacy scores. Cancer survivors with higher baseline symptom scores benefitted more on head and neck (pain in the mouth, social eating, swallowing, coughing, trismus), and colorectal cancer (weight) specific symptoms. DISCUSSION: Oncokompas seems most effective in reducing symptoms in head and neck cancer and colorectal cancer survivors who report a higher burden of tumour-specific symptoms. Oncokompas seems most effective in improving HRQOL in cancer survivors with lower self-efficacy, and in cancer survivors with higher personal control, and higher health literacy