This study set out to understand how (which elements), in what context and why (which mechanisms) interventions are successful in reducing (problematic) alcohol use among older adults, from the perspective of professionals providing these interventions.

Guided by a realist evaluation approach, an existing initial programme theory (IPT) on working elements in alcohol interventions was evaluated by conducting semistructured interviews with professionals.

These professionals (N=20) provide interventions across several contexts: with or without practitioner involvement; in-person or not and in an individual or group setting. Data were coded and links between contexts, elements, mechanisms and outcomes were sought for to confirm, refute or refine the IPT.

From the perspective of professionals, there are several general working elements in interventions for older adults: (1) pointing out risks and consequences of drinking behaviour; (2) paying attention to abstinence; (3) promoting contact with peers; (4) providing personalised content and (5) providing support. We also found context-specific working elements: (1) providing personalised conversations and motivational interviewing with practitioners; (2) ensuring safety, trust and a sense of connection and a location nearby home or a location that people are familiar with in person and (3) sharing experiences and tips in group interventions. Furthermore, the mechanisms awareness and accessible and low threshold participation were important contributors to positive intervention outcomes.

In addition to the IPT, our findings emphasise the need for social contact and support, personalised content, and strong relationships (both between client and practitioner, and client and peers) in interventions for older adults.

Current treatment decision-making in high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) care is not informed by individualised risks for different treatment options and patients’ preferences. Risk prediction tools may provide patients and professionals insight in personalised risks and benefits for different treatment options and thereby potentially increase patients’ knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. The VALUE-PERSARC study aims to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (PERSARC) to increase patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and to reduce decisional conflict in comparison with usual care in high-grade extremity STS patients.

The VALUE-PERSARC study is a parallel cluster randomised control trial that aims to include at least 120 primarily diagnosed high-grade extremity STS patients in 6 Dutch hospitals. Eligible patients (≥18 years) are those without a treatment plan and treated with curative intent. Patients with sarcoma subtypes or treatment options not mentioned in PERSARC are unable to participate. Hospitals will be randomised between usual care (control) or care with the use of PERSARC (intervention). In the intervention condition, PERSARC will be used by STS professionals in multidisciplinary tumour boards to guide treatment advice and in patient consultations, where the oncological/orthopaedic surgeon informs the patient about his/her diagnosis and discusses benefits and harms of all relevant treatment options. The primary outcomes are patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) 1 week after the treatment decision has been made. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using questionnaires, 1 week and 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment decision. Data will be analysed following an intention-to-treat approach using a linear mixed model and taking into account clustering of patients within hospitals.

The Medical Ethical Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (METC-LDD) approved this protocol (NL76563.058.21). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-review journal.

NL9160, NCT05741944.