Background: Even though antithrombotic therapy has probably little or even negative effects on the well-being of people with cancer during their last year of life, deprescribing antithrombotic... Show moreBackground: Even though antithrombotic therapy has probably little or even negative effects on the well-being of people with cancer during their last year of life, deprescribing antithrombotic therapy at the end of life is rare in practice. It is often continued until death, possibly resulting in excess bleeding, an increased disease burden and higher healthcare costs.Methods: The SERENITY consortium comprises researchers and clinicians from eight European countries with specialties in different clinical fields, epidemiology and psychology. SERENITY will use a comprehensive approach combining a realist review, flash mob research, epidemiological studies, and qualitative interviews. The results of these studies will be used in a Delphi process to reach a consensus on the optimal design of the shared decision support tool. Next, the shared decision support tool will be tested in a randomised controlled trial. A targeted implementation and dissemination plan will be developed to enable the use of the SERENITY tool across Europe, as well as its incorporation in clinical guidelines and policies. The entire project is funded by Horizon Europe.Results: SERENITY will develop an information-driven shared decision support tool that will facilitate treatment decisions regarding the appropriate use of antithrombotic therapy in people with cancer at the end of life.Conclusions: We aim to develop an intervention that guides the appropriate use of antithrombotic therapy, prevents bleeding complications, and saves healthcare costs. Hopefully, usage of the tool leads to enhanced empowerment and improved quality of life and treatment satisfaction of people with advanced cancer and their care givers. Show less
OBJECTIVES: to determine (cost)-effectiveness of a stepped-care intervention programme among subjects ≥75 years who screened positive for depressive symptoms in general practice. DESIGN: the... Show moreOBJECTIVES: to determine (cost)-effectiveness of a stepped-care intervention programme among subjects ≥75 years who screened positive for depressive symptoms in general practice. DESIGN: the pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. SETTING: sixty-seven Dutch general practices. SUBJECTS: two hundred and thirty-nine subjects ≥75 years screened positive for untreated depressive symptoms (15-item Geriatric Depression Scale ≥5). METHODS: usual care (34 practices, 118 subjects) was compared with the stepped-care intervention (33 practices, 121 subjects) consisting of three steps: individual counselling; Coping with Depression course; and-if indicated-referral back to general practitioner to discuss further treatment. Measurements included severity of depressive symptoms [Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)], quality of life, mortality and costs. RESULTS: at baseline subjects mostly were mildly/moderately depressed. At 6 months MADRS scores had improved more in the usual care than the intervention group (-2.9 versus -1.1 points, P = 0.032), but not at 12 months (-3.1 versus -4.6, P = 0.084). No significant differences were found within two separate age groups (75-79 years and ≥80 years). In intervention practices, 83% accepted referral to the stepped-care programme, and 19% accepted course participation. The control group appeared to have received more psychological care. CONCLUSIONS: among older subjects who screened positive for depressive symptoms, an offered stepped-care intervention programme was not (cost)-effective compared with usual care, possibly due to a low uptake of the course offer.Trial registration: www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN 71142851v. Show less
Weele, G.M. van der; Waal, M.W.M. de; Hout, W.B. van den; Mast, R.C. van der; Craen, A.J.M. de; Assendelft, W.J.J.; Gussekloo, J. 2011
