Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) are both efficacious treatments for depression, but it is less clear how both compare on outcome domains other than depression and in the longer term. Moreover, it is unclear which of these two psychotherapies works better for whom. This article describes the protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis that aims to compare the efficacy of CBT and IPT for adults with depression on a range of outcomes in both the short and long term, and to explore moderators of the treatment effect. This study can enhance our understanding of treatments for depression and inform treatment personalisation.

Systematic literature searches will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 1 January 2026, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing CBT and IPT for adult depression. Researchers of eligible studies will be invited to contribute their participant-level data. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted with mixed-effects models to examine (a) treatment efficacy on all outcome measures that are assessed at post-treatment or follow-up in at least two studies, and (b) various baseline participant characteristics as potential moderators of depressive symptom level at treatment completion.

Ethical approval is not required for this study since it will be based on anonymised data from RCTs that have already been completed. The findings of the present study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation.

Value-based healthcare (VBHC) strives to improve the healthcare system by focusing on value of care, that is, patient relevant outcomes relative to the costs for achieving these outcomes. Within VBHC, patient participation is crucial to identify patient relevant outcomes and value improvement potential. However, patient participation in VBHC initiatives remains limited. Therefore, we aimed to improve patient participation within VBHC teams with the ultimate aim to develop a practical guide for patient participation in VBHC.

An action research study.

This study was conducted in seven collaborating Dutch hospitals from March 2023 to November 2024.

Seven VBHC teams were selected to participate in the cyclical action research steps, that is, orientation, planning, implementation, and evaluation, in which patient participation was implemented or improved. These included the following patient groups: prostate cancer, vulnerable elderly, breast cancer, diabetes, maternity care, colorectal cancer and chronic kidney disease.

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. Qualitative data included observations and minutes of meetings with the intervention teams. Quantitative data included responses to the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) by multiple members of the intervention (n=7) and control teams (n=94) at three time points (T1=6 months, T2=12 months, T3=end of study). Qualitative data were thematically analysed and quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Finally, the data were triangulated to create an overview of lessons learnt in improving patient participation.

Patient participation goals varied across teams, leading to diverse actions, such as establishing a diabetes patient panel and distributing questionnaires to patients with colorectal cancer. PPEET results show that 71% of intervention team members reported that patient participation had an impact on the team’s outcomes compared with 44% in control teams (T3). Furthermore, 80% of the intervention team members initially wanted training in patient participation (T1), which dropped to 29% at T3. Overall, 22 lessons in improving patient participation in multidisciplinary project teams were identified and compiled into a practical guide.

The action research process improved the process and impact of patient participation in the intervention teams. Furthermore, the results indicate that the action research process enhanced the team members’ knowledge and skills on patient participation. The practical guide developed in this study can be used to support implementation of patient participation in VBHC.

Radioembolisation (RE) is gaining traction as a robust treatment option for patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) across all cancer stages. RE allows the delivery of targeted high-dose radiation directly to tumours, with relative sparing of the surrounding liver tissue. Traditionally, radiation has been delivered using ⁹⁰Yttrium ([⁹⁰Y]Y)-labelled microspheres, either glass or resin. The success of RE is dependent on the dose delivered to the tumour. When using [⁹⁰Y]Y microspheres, dose prediction is calculated through a ^99mTechnitium ([^99mTc]Tc)-macroaggregated albumin (MAA) scan, which allows the calculation of the dose to be administered to the tumour. However, [^99mTc]Tc-MAA is not a true surrogate of [⁹⁰Y]Y microspheres, and this will impact on the final dose delivered. [¹⁶⁶Ho]Ho, like [⁹⁰Y]Y, is a beta emitter but unlike [⁹⁰Y]Y also emits gamma-radiation, allowing for quantitative nuclear imaging. The primary aim of this pilot study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of dosimetry-based individualised ¹⁶⁶Holmium ([¹⁶⁶Ho]Ho-RE) in patients with HCC.

15 eligible participants will be recruited to receive [¹⁶⁶Ho]Ho-RE. The primary objective is to establish the toxicity profile of dosimetry-based individualised [¹⁶⁶Ho]Ho-RE. The secondary objective is to assess efficacy as measured by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (mRECIST) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1 criteria. Additional exploratory objectives include quality of life assessment and identification of a radiomic signature of response. The results from this study will be combined with the prospective iHEPAR study to form a larger analysis.

The study has received approval from the East Midlands—Nottingham 1 Research Ethics Committee—approval number 23/EM/0239. The study will be performed in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the principles of Good Clinical Practice. Signed informed consent will be obtained from each patient before study entry. The results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT06302400.

‘Hotspotters’ are patients with complex care needs, defined by problems in multiple life domains and high acute care use. These patients often receive mismatched care, resulting in overuse of care and increased healthcare costs. As reliable data on effective interventions for this population are scarce, the goal of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of proactive, personalised, integrated care for this group.

The Hotspotters Project is planned as a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial in 20 primary care practices in the Netherlands. All practices and participants will begin with standard care during the control period (2–8 months), followed by an intervention (12 months) consisting of a positive health intake with goal setting, multidisciplinary meetings, a personalised care plan and proactive care management. The study will conclude with a follow-up (2–8 months), resulting in a total study duration of 22 months. We plan to include 200 patients with (a) problems on two or more life domains and (b) at least two acute care encounters in the previous year. Possible Hotspotters are identified using an Adjusted Clinical Groups-based algorithm or via a local primary healthcare team.

Questionnaires and routine care data will be used to gather data on cost-effectiveness, which will then be assessed using multilevel analysis, with levels for the individual, cluster and duration of control period. Secondary outcomes will include psychological outcomes on self-regulation (proactive coping, patient activation, self-efficacy and intention), experience of care (satisfaction, perceived autonomy support and qualitative data from focus groups) and quality of life, qualitative analysis of the Positive Health approach, implementation outcomes and process evaluation including integration of care.

The Ethics Committee of Leiden University Medical Centre granted approval (METC-LDD, P21.123). Results will be shared through peer-reviewed publication and (inter)national conference presentations.

NCT05878054.

For patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA), surgical resection remains the sole treatment modality that can potentially result in cure. Unfortunately, the majority of patients present with unresectable tumours or are excluded from surgical treatment due to complications like cholangitis affecting their performance status. In the Netherlands, recommended first-line treatment for patients with unresectable pCCA is palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin. This regimen yields an estimated median overall survival (OS) of 11.7–15.2 months, highlighting the urgent need for novel treatment options. The STRONG I trial, a phase I study in patients with unresectable pCCA, was completed in 2020. Its aim was to assess the feasibility and toxicity profile of adding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to chemotherapy. SBRT, delivered in 15 fractions of 4.0 Gray (Gy), was considered to be feasible and safe, with no dose-limiting toxicity being observed. The 1-year local tumour control rate was 80% and the 1-year OS rate 100%, with maintenance of quality of life (QoL). These results encouraged us to initiate the STRONG II trial, aiming to investigate the efficacy of adding SBRT to chemotherapy in a larger patient cohort.

STRONG II is a single-arm, multicentre phase II study. Patients with non-metastatic unresectable pCCA (T1-4, N0-2) are eligible. A total of 30 patients will be enrolled in six academic centres in the Netherlands and two in Belgium. SBRT will be delivered in 15 fractions of 4.0–4.5 Gy. The primary endpoint is local tumour control, defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) V.1.1. Secondary endpoints include toxicity, biliary stent-related events, progression-free survival, OS and QoL using the EuroQoL five-dimensional, five-level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the EORTC Biliary Module (QLQ-BIL21). In addition, we will explore the predictive value of the peripheral immunological status (immune-related proteins and serum functional immunological status assay) and its dynamics in determining survival outcomes. For this explorative translational study, two blood samples will be collected, one before the start of chemotherapy and another after completing chemotherapy.

Approval of the study was obtained on 5 June 2024 by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands (ID: NL86210.078.24). The anticipated time frame for patient enrolment is July 2024 to December 2027. The main study findings will be published in peer-reviewed medical journals, and presented at national and international conferences.

NCT06493734 (ClinicalTrials.gov).