| Title: |
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer in primary care (CANAssess2): a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, controlled trial |
| Authors: |
Johnson, M.J.; Wright-Hughes, A.; McNaught, E.; Hankin, A.; Clark, J.; McCormack, T.; Dickson, J.M.; Foy, R.; Wilkes, S.; Meads, D.M.; O’Dwyer, J.L.; Begum, S.; Currow, D.C.; Swan, F.; Day, F.; Farrin, A.J.; Meads, D.; O’Dwyer, J.; Farrin, A.; Blenkinsopp, J.; Allan, C.; Conneh, F.; Whitehead, K.; Cunningham, M.; Mujahid, S.; Singleton, C.; Jones, A.; Copsey, B.; Marsden, L.; Hartley, S.; Brooks, L.; Bijsterveld, P.; Metherell, J.; Sheehan, L.; Burrows, J.M.; Crowther, L. |
| Publisher Information: |
Elsevier BV |
| Publication Year: |
2025 |
| Collection: |
White Rose Research Online (Universities of Leeds, Sheffield & York) |
| Description: |
Background The Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) is a consultation guide to identify and triage patients’ and carers’ cancer-related unmet needs, but its effectiveness in primary care is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NAT-C in reducing patient unmet needs and reducing carer burden in primary care. Methods The Cancer Patients’ Needs Assessment in Primary Care (CANAssess2) trial was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, controlled trial of the NAT-C versus usual care in patients aged 18 years and older with active cancer (ie, receiving anticancer treatment with curative or palliative intent; managed with a watch and wait approach; or with recurrent or metastatic disease), conducted across northeast England and Yorkshire. Eligible general practices (clusters) were willing to be trained and deliver the NAT-C for recruited patients if so allocated, were willing to commit to trial procedures, and gave written informed practice-level consent. Practices were randomly assigned (1:1) to deliver the NAT-C intervention or usual care alone by use of minimisation incorporating a random element to ensure treatment groups were well balanced for patient list size, locality, and training centre status. Patients and carers (family or friend nominated by patient) consented to complete follow-up questionnaires at baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months and attend a NAT-C appointment if registered with an intervention practice. The primary outcome was at least one moderate-to-severe unmet need at 3 months (according to the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form 34 [SCNS-SF34]). Secondary outcomes included at least one moderate-to-severe unmet need at 1 month and 6 months, level of unmet needs (SCNS-SF34 score), symptoms (Revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS-r]), mood and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-C15-Palliative questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL]), performance status (Australia-modified ... |
| Document Type: |
article in journal/newspaper |
| File Description: |
text |
| Language: |
English |
| ISSN: |
3050-5143 |
| Relation: |
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/237367/1/CANASSESS2%20author%20accepted%20manuscript.pdf; Johnson, M.J., Wright-Hughes, A. orcid.org/0000-0001-8839-6756 , McNaught, E. et al. (46 more authors) (2025) Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer in primary care (CANAssess2): a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, controlled trial. The Lancet Primary Care, 1 (4). 100031. ISSN: 3050-5143 |
| Availability: |
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/237367/; https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/237367/1/CANASSESS2%20author%20accepted%20manuscript.pdf |
| Rights: |
cc_by_4 |
| Accession Number: |
edsbas.B2F92E57 |
| Database: |
BASE |