Communication Issues in Patient and Provider Discussions of Immunotherapy

April 10, 2024 updated by: Rebecca D. Pentz, Emory University

Communication Issues in Patient/Provider Discussions of Immunotherapy

This trials studies communication issues in patient and provider discussions about immunotherapy. The goal of this study is to describe where patients have heard about immunotherapy, what the participants understand about it, how physicians and other healthcare workers describe immunotherapy, and how educational videos may support patient knowledge about immunotherapy.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:

I. To identify misestimations about the risks and benefits of immunotherapy resulting from media hype or other sources and assess if these misestimations persist post-provider conversation about immunotherapy.

II. To qualitatively describe patient reported misunderstandings and to assess patient understanding of technical terms and metaphors used in the immunotherapy conversation.

III. To identify provider and patient preferences for information to be communicated about immunotherapy.

IV. Develop videos that describe immunotherapy and test their efficacy in improving understanding using pre and post methodology.

OUTLINE:

Patients and their providers undergo observation during a conversation about immunotherapy. Then participate in an interview over 20 minutes. Understanding of educational videos is then tested.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

125

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

    • Georgia
      • Atlanta, Georgia, United States, 30322
        • Recruiting
        • Emory University Hospital/Winship Cancer Institute
        • Contact:
        • Contact:
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Rebecca D. Pentz, PhD
      • Decatur, Georgia, United States, 30033
        • Recruiting
        • Atlanta VA Medical Center
        • Contact:
        • Contact:
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Wayne B. Harris, MD

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • AIMS 1-3: All patients and providers who may have a discussion about immunotherapy at the Winship Cancer Institute
  • AIM 4: Any cancer patient

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Non-Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Other: Aim 4 tests an educational video
The participants watch a video and their comprehension is tested in a pre and post methodology
Testing an educational video
Other: Interview
Patients and providers undergo observation during a conversation about immunotherapy. Then participate in an interview over 20 minutes.
Participate in interview
Undergo observation
Other Names:
  • Inspection
  • Visual Inspection

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Misestimations about the risks and benefits of immunotherapy resulting from media hype or other sources
Time Frame: Up to 4 years
Will use descriptive statistics to summarize the demographic characteristics and responses to the interviews. Will audio-record and transcribe the provider conversation for immunotherapy and the pre- and post-provider conversation interviews. The transcripts will be qualitatively coded using multi-level semantic analysis in MAXQDA. Pre-determined codes will include a list of potential benefits of immunotherapy, any patient estimation of the potential for benefit, any side effect and risk mentioned and any estimation of its frequency. Because there is no data on the frequency of misestimations due to media hype, no quantitative analysis is planned.
Up to 4 years
Provider and patient preferences for information to be communicated about immunotherapy
Time Frame: Up to 4 years
The frequencies of each item of information identified by providers and patients will be determined. A combined list of the most frequently mentioned items of information to be included and a discussion of immunotherapy will be compiled.
Up to 4 years
Correct definition rates (pre- versus post-video)
Time Frame: Up to 4 years
Before-video and after-video correct definition rates will be calculated, along with 95% exact binomial confidence intervals using the Clopper-Pearson method. Before and after paired rates will be compared using an exact McNemar's test. Subset analyses will be performed for gender, age group (=< 55, > 55), and education level (high school graduate or less, some college or more).
Up to 4 years
Qualitatively describe patient reported misunderstandings
Time Frame: Up to 4 years
During the observed conversation, the ethics team member will note any technical term or metaphor used. The patient will then be asked if each term and metaphor is understood. The open ended questions about misunderstanding, technical terms and metaphors used, and patients' understanding of each term will be qualitatively coded using multi-level semantic analysis in MAXQDA. Frequency of misunderstood terms and misunderstood metaphors will be calculated.
Up to 4 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Rebecca Pentz, PhD, Emory University Hospital/Winship Cancer Institute

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

October 6, 2016

Primary Completion (Estimated)

June 1, 2025

Study Completion (Estimated)

August 1, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 16, 2023

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 16, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

May 24, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 12, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 10, 2024

Last Verified

April 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • IRB00091198
  • P30CA138292 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)
  • NCI-2020-00828 (Registry Identifier: CTRP (Clinical Trial Reporting Program))
  • WINSHIP3293-16 (Other Identifier: Emory University Hospital/Winship Cancer Institute)
  • P01CA257906 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

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.

Clinical Trials on Malignant Solid Neoplasm

Clinical Trials on Interview

3
Subscribe