Heuristic Tool To Improve Symptom Self-Management in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer
A Randomized Controlled Trial Using a Heuristic Tool To Improve Symptom Self-Management in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: Grace Hodges
- Phone Number: 804-828-8917
- Email: hodgesg@vcu.edu
Study Locations
-
-
Missouri
-
Kansas City, Missouri, United States, 64108
- Recruiting
- Children's Mercy Hospital
-
Contact:
- Kristin Stegenga
- Phone Number: 816-302-6841
- Email: kstegenga@cmh.edu
-
Principal Investigator:
- Kristin Stegenga
-
-
Utah
-
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84113
- Recruiting
- University of Utah Primary Children's Hospital
-
Contact:
- Lauri Linder
- Phone Number: 801-581-4339
- Email: lauri.linder@nurs.utah.edu
-
Principal Investigator:
- Lauri Linder
-
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84112
- Recruiting
- University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute (HCI)
-
Contact:
- Lauri Linder
- Phone Number: 801-581-4339
- Email: lauri.linder@nurs.utah.edu
-
Principal Investigator:
- Lauri Linder
-
-
Virginia
-
Richmond, Virginia, United States, 23298
- Recruiting
- Virginia Commonwealth University
-
Contact:
- Grace Hodges
- Phone Number: 804-828-8917
- Email: rkelswic@vcu.edu
-
Principal Investigator:
- Ronald Elswick, PhD
-
-
Washington
-
Seattle, Washington, United States, 98105
- Active, not recruiting
- Seattle Children's Hospital @ University of Washington
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Child
- Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Has received at least 1 cycle of cancer treatment and is within 3 months of receiving that first cycle of treatment
- Receiving regularly scheduled cancer treatment and will be receiving at least three more cycles
- Reports at least 1 symptom related to cancer and/or its treatment
- Able to speak, read, and write English as required for completion of the C-SCAT and study measures
Exclusion Criteria:
- Cognitive and/or physical inability to complete study measures.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Supportive Care
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Computerized Symptom Assessment Tool C-SCAT
Participants will be asked to complete the C-SCAT at three of their clinic visits for cancer treatment in addition to usual care for assessing symptoms.
This intervention period will last up to about 12 weeks, depending on cancer treatment schedule (for example, every 2, 3 or 4 weeks).
|
The C-SCAT includes the 32 symptoms from the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Users select symptoms they have experienced over the past week, rate each symptom's severity and distress, and name a perceived cause.
They then identify temporal and causal relationships between symptoms using lines and arrows, designate groups, i.e., "clusters" of symptoms, and give a name to each cluster.
They are asked the reason for a symptom's designation as a priority symptom and what they do to alleviate that symptom.
Next, they are asked to designate a priority cluster and finally, to confirm whether the image accurately reflects their symptom experience.
Then, at the clinic visit, the AYA shares the visual image with the HCP, and more importantly, their priority symptoms, which can facilitate the symptom discussion.
The C-SCAT intervention group will complete the C-SCAT prior to each of three encounters with their health care providers (HCPs).
|
|
Active Comparator: Usual Care Control Group
Participants will follow usual care for cancer symptoms for up to 12 weeks, depending on how cancer treatment schedule (for example, every 2, 3 or 4 weeks).
|
Usual care is defined as the usual approach to assessing symptoms during the HCP encounter.
To provide attentional control to the usual care control group and prevent disproportionate attrition from that group, study staff will contact participants three times during the intervention period (approximately 3 months) when they are in for a scheduled clinic visit and communicate the following: 1) express appreciation for ongoing study participation; 2) ask how everything is going with their treatment; 3) ask if anything has changed with their treatment plan since the last study visit; and 4) confirm continued participation in the study.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on the primary outcomes of self-efficacy for symptom management immediately post intervention (Time 1) by comparing the scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System®; PROMIS® Scale.
Time Frame: Baseline- Week 0
|
Self-efficacy for symptom management will be assessed with the PROMIS® Self Efficacy for Symptom Management Scale that contains 28 items and assess the person's current level of confidence to manage/control symptoms, manage symptoms in different settings, and keep symptoms from interfering with work, relationships, or activities.
Response options are on a 5-point Likert scale (1=I am not confident at all; 5=I am very confident).
Scores are summed across items, and higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy
|
Baseline- Week 0
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on the primary outcomes of self-efficacy for symptom management immediately post intervention (Time 1) by comparing the scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System®; PROMIS® Scale.
Time Frame: 2 weeks post intervention (Timepoint 1)
|
Self-efficacy for symptom management will be assessed with the PROMIS® Self Efficacy for Symptom Management Scale that contains 28 items and assess the person's current level of confidence to manage/control symptoms, manage symptoms in different settings, and keep symptoms from interfering with work, relationships, or activities.
Response options are on a 5-point Likert scale (1=I am not confident at all; 5=I am very confident).
Scores are summed across items, and higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy
|
2 weeks post intervention (Timepoint 1)
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on the primary outcomes of self-efficacy for symptom management at follow up (Time 2) by comparing the scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System®; PROMIS® Scale.
Time Frame: 4 weeks following Timepoint 1 (Timepoint 2)
|
Self-efficacy for symptom management will be assessed with the PROMIS® Self Efficacy for Symptom Management Scale that contains 28 items and assess the person's current level of confidence to manage/control symptoms, manage symptoms in different settings, and keep symptoms from interfering with work, relationships, or activities.
Response options are on a 5-point Likert scale (1=I am not confident at all; 5=I am very confident).
Scores are summed across items, and higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy
|
4 weeks following Timepoint 1 (Timepoint 2)
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on the primary outcomes of symptom self-management behaviors immediately post intervention (Time 1) by comparing the scores from the Symptom Self-management Behaviors Tool (SSMBT).
Time Frame: Baseline- Week 0
|
The SSMBT contains 12 items with two subscales: Manage Symptoms (8 items) that addresses behaviors related to managing their symptoms, and Talk to Healthcare Provider (4 items) that addresses behaviors related to communicating with their HCP about their symptoms.
Items are scored using a 5-point Likert scale (0=never/rarely; 4=always).
Scores are summed across all items.
Higher scores indicate higher engagement in SS-M behaviors.
|
Baseline- Week 0
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on the primary outcomes of symptom self-management behaviors immediately post intervention (Time 1) by comparing the scores from the Symptom Self-management Behaviors Tool (SSMBT).
Time Frame: 2 weeks post intervention (Timepoint 1)
|
The SSMBT contains 12 items with two subscales: Manage Symptoms (8 items) that addresses behaviors related to managing their symptoms, and Talk to Healthcare Provider (4 items) that addresses behaviors related to communicating with their HCP about their symptoms.
Items are scored using a 5-point Likert scale (0=never/rarely; 4=always).
Scores are summed across all items.
Higher scores indicate higher engagement in SS-M behaviors.
|
2 weeks post intervention (Timepoint 1)
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on the primary outcomes of symptom self-management behaviors at follow up (Time 2) by comparing the scores from the Symptom Self-management Behaviors Tool (SSMBT).
Time Frame: 4 weeks following Timepoint 1 (Timepoint 2)
|
The SSMBT contains 12 items with two subscales: Manage Symptoms (8 items) that addresses behaviors related to managing their symptoms, and Talk to Healthcare Provider (4 items) that addresses behaviors related to communicating with their HCP about their symptoms.
Items are scored using a 5-point Likert scale (0=never/rarely; 4=always).
Scores are summed across all items.
Higher scores indicate higher engagement in SS-M behaviors.
|
4 weeks following Timepoint 1 (Timepoint 2)
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on secondary outcomes (symptom severity) at baseline, by comparing the scores from the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Time Frame: Baseline-Week 0
|
Symptom severity in the past week will be assessed with the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Participants rate the severity on a 4-point Likert scale (1=slightly; 4=very severe), and the distress on a 5-point Likert scale (0=none; 4=very much).
|
Baseline-Week 0
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on secondary outcomes (symptom severity) immediately post intervention (Time 1) by comparing the scores from the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Time Frame: 2 weeks post intervention (Timepoint 1)
|
Symptom severity in the past week will be assessed with the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Participants rate the severity on a 4-point Likert scale (1=slightly; 4=very severe), and the distress on a 5-point Likert scale (0=none; 4=very much).
|
2 weeks post intervention (Timepoint 1)
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on secondary outcomes (symptom severity) immediately post intervention (Time 2) by comparing the scores from the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Time Frame: 4 weeks following Timepoint 1 (Timepoint 2)
|
Symptom severity in the past week will be assessed with the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Participants rate the severity on a 4-point Likert scale (1=slightly; 4=very severe), and the distress on a 5-point Likert scale (0=none; 4=very much).
|
4 weeks following Timepoint 1 (Timepoint 2)
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on secondary outcomes (symptom distress), at baseline, by comparing the scores from the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Time Frame: Baseline- Week 0
|
Symptom distress in the past week will be assessed with the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Participants rate the distress on a 4-point Likert scale (1=slightly; 4=very severe), and the distress on a 5-point Likert scale (0=none; 4=very much).
|
Baseline- Week 0
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on secondary outcomes (symptom distress) immediately post intervention (Time 1) by comparing the scores from the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Time Frame: 2 weeks post intervention (Timepoint 1)
|
Symptom distress in the past week will be assessed with the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Participants rate the distress on a 4-point Likert scale (1=slightly; 4=very severe), and the distress on a 5-point Likert scale (0=none; 4=very much).
|
2 weeks post intervention (Timepoint 1)
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on secondary outcomes (symptom distress) immediately post intervention (Time 2) by comparing the scores from the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Time Frame: 4 weeks following Timepoint 1 (Timepoint 2)
|
Symptom distress in the past week will be assessed with the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).
Participants rate the distress on a 4-point Likert scale (1=slightly; 4=very severe), and the distress on a 5-point Likert scale (0=none; 4=very much).
|
4 weeks following Timepoint 1 (Timepoint 2)
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on secondary outcomes (social function) at baseline, by comparing the PROMIS SF v2.0 Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities scores.
Time Frame: Baseline- Week 0
|
Quality of life (QOL) social function will be assessed with the PROMIS SF v2.0 Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities.
It contains 8 items, is scored on a 5-point Likert response scale (5=never; 1=always)
|
Baseline- Week 0
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on secondary outcomes (social function) immediately post intervention (Time 1) by comparing the PROMIS SF v2.0 Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities scores.
Time Frame: 2 weeks post intervention (Timepoint 1)
|
Quality of life (QOL) social function will be assessed with the PROMIS SF v2.0 Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities.
It contains 8 items, is scored on a 5-point Likert response scale (5=never; 1=always)
|
2 weeks post intervention (Timepoint 1)
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on secondary outcomes (social function) post intervention (Time 2) by comparing the PROMIS SF v2.0 Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities scores.
Time Frame: 4 weeks following Timepoint 1 (Timepoint 2)
|
Quality of life (QOL) social function will be assessed with the PROMIS SF v2.0 Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities.
It contains 8 items, is scored on a 5-point Likert response scale (5=never; 1=always)
|
4 weeks following Timepoint 1 (Timepoint 2)
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on secondary outcomes (satisfaction with social function) post intervention (Time 2) by comparing the PROMIS SF v2.0 Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities.
Time Frame: Baseline -week 0
|
QOL satisfaction with social function will be assessed with the PROMIS SF v2.0 Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities.
It contains eight items, is scored on a 5-point Likert response scale (1=not at all; 5=very much)
|
Baseline -week 0
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on secondary outcomes (satisfaction with social function) post intervention (Time 2) by comparing the PROMIS SF v2.0 Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities.
Time Frame: 2 weeks post intervention (Timepoint 1)
|
QOL satisfaction with social function will be assessed with the PROMIS SF v2.0 Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities.
It contains eight items, is scored on a 5-point Likert response scale (1=not at all; 5=very much)
|
2 weeks post intervention (Timepoint 1)
|
|
Effects of the C-SCAT versus usual care on secondary outcomes (satisfaction with social function) post intervention (Time 2) by comparing the PROMIS SF v2.0 Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities.
Time Frame: 4 weeks following Timepoint 1 (Timepoint 2)
|
QOL satisfaction with social function will be assessed with the PROMIS SF v2.0 Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities.
It contains eight items, is scored on a 5-point Likert response scale (1=not at all; 5=very much)
|
4 weeks following Timepoint 1 (Timepoint 2)
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Collaborators
Collaborators
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Ronald Elswick, PhD, Virginia Commonwealth University
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Estimated)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- MCC-22-20031
- HM20025194 (Other Identifier: Virginia Commonwealth University)
- SSU00210247 (Other Identifier: Advarra)
- 1R01CA286799-01 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.