Purpose The web-based computer-tailored Kanker Nazorg Wijzer (Cancer Aftercare Guide) supports cancer survivors with psychosocial issues during cancer recovery. The current study investigates whether the 6-month effects in increasing emotional and social functioning and reducing depression and fatigue hold at 12 months from baseline. Moreover, it explores whether patient characteristics moderate the 6-and 12-month intervention effectiveness. Methods Cancer survivors from 21 Dutch hospitals (November 2013-June 2014) were randomized to an intervention (n = 231) or a wait-list control group (n = 231). Intervention effects on emotional and social functioning (EORTC QLQ-C30), depression (HADS), and fatigue (CIS) were evaluated through multilevel linear regression analyses. Results At 12 months from baseline, the intervention group no longer differed from the control group in emotional and social functioning, depression, and fatigue. Moderator analyses indicated that, at 6 months, the intervention was effective in improving social functioning for men (d = 0.34), reducing fatigue for participants ≤56 years (d = 0.44), and reducing depression for participants who received chemotherapy (d = 0.36). At 12 months, participants with a medium educational level reported higher social functioning (d = 0.19), while participants with a low educational level reported lower social functioning (d = 0.22) than participants with a similar educational level in the control group. Conclusions The intervention gave cancer patients a head start to psychological recovery after the end of cancer treatment. The control group caught up in the long run. Implications for cancer survivors The Cancer Aftercare Guide expedited recovery after cancer treatment. Being a low intensity, easy accessible, and relatively low cost intervention , it could serve as a relevant step in recovery and stepped care.

BackgroundAfter primary treatment, many cancer survivors experience psychosocial, physical, and lifestyle problems. To address these issues, we developed a web-based computer tailored intervention, the Kanker Nazorg Wijzer (Cancer Aftercare Guide), aimed at providing psychosocial and lifestyle support for cancer survivors. The purpose of this article is to describe the systematic development and the study design for evaluation of this theory and empirical based intervention.Methods/designFor the development of the intervention, the steps of the Intervention Mapping protocol were followed. A needs assessment was performed consisting of a literature study, focus group interviews, and a survey study to get more insight into cancer survivors’ health issues. This resulted in seven problem areas that were addressed in the intervention: cancer-related fatigue, return to work, anxiety and depression, social relationships and intimacy, physical activity, diet, and smoking. To address these problem areas, the principles of problem-solving therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy are used. At the start of the intervention, participants have to fill in a screening questionnaire. Based on their answers, participants receive tailored advice about which problem areas deserve their attention. Participants were recruited from November 2013 through June 2014 by hospital staff from 21 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were selected either during follow-up visits to the hospital or from reviews of the patients’ files. The effectiveness of the intervention is being tested in a randomized controlled trial consisting of an intervention group (n = 231) and waiting list control group (n = 231) with a baseline measurement and follow-up measurements at 3, 6, and 12 months.DiscussionUsing the Intervention Mapping protocol resulted in a theory and evidence-based intervention providing tailored advice to cancer survivors on how to cope with psychosocial and lifestyle issues after primary treatment.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register NTR3375

The heterogeneity in unmet needs complicates the provision of adequate support for survivors.

BackgroundHealthy lifestyle behaviors have been demonstrated to be beneficial for positive health outcomes and the quality of life in cancer survivors. However, adherence to recommendations is low. More insight is needed in factors that may explain engagement in lifestyle behaviors to develop effective cancer aftercare interventions. This study assessed different factors, namely socio-demographic, cancer-related, psychological, social cognitive factors (attitude, social support, self-efficacy) and intention, in relationship to five lifestyle behaviors (smoking, physical activity, alcohol, and fruit and vegetable consumption).MethodsEarly survivors of various types of cancer were recruited from eighteen Dutch Hospitals (n = 255). Distal factors (socio-demographic, cancer related, psychological), proximal factors (social cognitive), intention and five lifestyle behaviors (smoking, physical activity, alcohol, fruit and vegetable consumption) were assessed through a self-reported questionnaire. Cross-sectional analyses (correlations and regression analyses) were conducted.ResultsThe lifestyle of a small group (11 %) of the cancer survivors was coherent with all five health recommendations, the majority (>80 %) adhered to two, three of four recommendations, and only few (<7 %) adhered to one or none recommendation. The highest prevalence in followed recommendations have been detected in physical activity (87.4 %), refrain from smoking (82 %), and alcohol consumption (75.4 %). There was low adherence to the fruit recommendation (54.8 %) and to the vegetable recommendation (27.4 %). Only weak associations were found between the different behaviors. Each separate lifestyle behavior was influenced by different patterns of correlates. Self-efficacy, attitude, and intention were the strongest correlates in all examined behaviors, although with various contributions, while socio-demographic, cancer-related and psychological factors provided a much smaller contribution.ConclusionsOutcomes of engagement in healthy lifestyle behaviors were more positive in this study compared to other research in cancer survivors; however, there is room for improvements in adherence to all five lifestyle behaviors. Especially fruit consumption was poor and vegetable consumption even worse. Our findings emphasized that all examined lifestyle behaviors need to be encouraged, with taken into account that each lifestyle behavior may be influenced by a specific set of mainly social cognitive factors or intention.

Background: Accessing post-diagnostic care can be difficult for people with dementia and their informal carers. Little is known, however, about the determinants of barriers to access, and how these might vary between countries. The aim of this study was to explore potential inequalities in access to formal dementia care services between England and the Netherlands, specifically from more disadvantaged areas. Methods: This was a mixed-methods study, involving semi-structured qualitative interviews and a carer questionnaire. People with dementia and informal carers were recruited by clinicians. The postal survey was co-produced with people with dementia, informal carers, and health care professionals. The survey asked carers about their own and their relatives with dementia’s, social support service usage and financing; as well as how they were made aware of services and whether they required more support. Qualitative transcripts were analysed by two researchers in each country using thematic analysis. Results: A total of 103 carer questionnaires were received by post and 13 interviews were conducted with people with dementia and family carers between January 2020 and April 2020. Many services were accessed via self-funding. Thematic analysis generated five core themes: Health literacy; Having faith and lack of faith; Service suitability; Structural issues surrounding service provision; and Financing care. One major difference between both country’s systems of care were the case manager and network support which people with dementia and carers benefitted from in the Netherlands, which was rarely the case in the UK. Conclusions: People with dementia and informal carers need to be supported better in accessing formal dementia care services in both the UK and the Netherlands, whilst some learning can be taken to improve access.