A Tool for Improving the Shared Decision-making Process in Patients With Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Shared Decision-Making Encounter Tool for Adjuvant Treatment of Lung Cancer: Randomized Control Trial

This clinical trial compares the use of a shared decision-making communication tool during a clinical encounter to standard care for improving the quality of the shared decision-making process among patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Lung cancer patients are faced with many decisions about their treatment options. Studies have found that patients are most satisfied if they perceive an effort by their physician to share decision making and are afforded sufficient time to make their decision. Shared decision-making tools can help physicians guide the conversation, offer tailored estimates of the potential benefits, harms, and practical inconveniences of the available options, and support deliberations that take into account patient biological and biographical circumstances, goals, and priorities. Incorporating a shared decision-making communication tool into standard clinical encounters may improve the shared-decision making process as well as patient satisfaction with their treatment choice.

Study Overview

• Status: Recruiting
• Conditions: Lung Non-Small Cell Carcinoma; Stage III Lung Cancer AJCC v8; Stage IV Lung Cancer AJCC v8; Stage II Lung Cancer AJCC v8
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Survey Administration; Other: Best Practice; Other: Electronic Health Record Review; Other: Video Recording; Other: Communication Intervention; Other: Audio Recording

Detailed Description

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:

I. Encounters where standard of care and the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) choice conversation aid were utilized will have an improvement in the quality of the shared decision-making process over encounters with standard of care alone.

II. Patients with encounters where the NSCLC choice conversation aid was used along with standard of care will have decreased decisional conflict in regard to treatment choice compared to standard of care alone.

OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms.

ARM I: Patients attend a standard of care visit with their clinician on study.

ARM II: Patients attend a standard of care visit with the use of the shared decision-making conversation tool by the clinician on study.

After completion of study intervention, patients are followed up at 2 and 6 weeks.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Estimated): 100
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • Minnesota
    • Rochester, Minnesota, United States, 55905
      • Recruiting
      • Mayo Clinic in Rochester
      • Contact: Clinical Trials Referral Office; Phone Number: 855-776-0015; Email: mayocliniccancerstudies@mayo.edu
      • Principal Investigator: Konstantinos Leventakos, M.D., Ph.D.

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Adult; Older Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• CLINICIANS:
• All clinicians within identified departments participating are eligible (doctor of medicine [MD]/doctor of osteopathy [DO], fellows/residents, physician assistant [PA]/nurse practitioner [NP])
• PATIENTS:
• Adult patients (>= 18 years of age)
• Appointments at Mayo Clinic in Rochester
• Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stage > 1B
• Eligible by their oncologist for adjuvant treatment

Exclusion Criteria:

• Exclude patient with major barriers to provide written informed consent or to participate in shared decision-making (i.e., dementia, severe hearing or visual impairment)

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: None (Open Label)

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Arm I (standard of care); Patients attend a standard of care visit with their clinician on study.	Other: Survey Administration; Ancillary studies; Other: Best Practice; Receive standard of care; Other Names: standard of care; standard therapy; Other: Electronic Health Record Review; Ancillary studies; Other: Video Recording; Ancillary studies; Other: Audio Recording; Ancillary studies
Experimental: Arm II (standard of care, conversation aid); Patients attend a standard of care visit with the use of the shared decision-making conversation tool by the clinician on study.	Other: Survey Administration; Ancillary studies; Other: Best Practice; Receive standard of care; Other Names: standard of care; standard therapy; Other: Electronic Health Record Review; Ancillary studies; Other: Video Recording; Ancillary studies; Other: Communication Intervention; Use shared decision-making conversation tool; Other: Audio Recording; Ancillary studies

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Effectiveness of the intervention on implementing shared decision making	Effectiveness of the intervention will be assessed using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDMQ-9) to evaluate standard of care alone versus using the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) conversation aid plus standard of care. The overall score is the sum of the 9 items, where lower values indicate less perceived shared decision making, and higher scores indicate more perceived shared decision making. Self-reported responses from patients and clinicians will also be collected at multiple timepoints throughout the study.	Baseline (immediately following appointment); 2 weeks post appointment
Degree of involvement of patients by the clinician in the shared decision making	Evaluated using the 12-item "observing patient involvement" (OPTION12) tool, where reviewers will view and score recorded encounters. The survey tool consists of 12 items scored from 0-4, where 0=no effort and 4=exemplary effort.	Baseline (immediately following appointment); 2 weeks post appointment
Provider satisfaction with NSCLC choice conversation aid	Provider satisfaction with each encounter will be assessed with two questions. The first will be answered using a 5-point Likert scale where 1=Not at all satisfied and 5=Completely satisfied. The second will be answered using a 7-point scale where 1=No, I would strongly recommend against it and 7=Yes, I would strongly recommend it. Higher overall scores indicate higher satisfaction with the intervention.	After each encounter for the duration of the study, until accrual is reached

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Knowledge transfer	Knowledge transfer will be assessed using 6 questions about treatment options to prevent recurrence of lung cancer. The 6 questions use a response format of "True / False / Do not know". Correct responses will be summed and divided by the total number of questions asked. If a patient answers at least 1 knowledge question then they will be assessed for this outcome, where all missing responses will be coded as incorrect.	Baseline (immediately following appointment); 2 weeks post appointment
Patient satisfaction	Patient satisfaction with encounter will be assessed with 1 question on a 7-point Likert scale. Patients will be asked whether they would recommend the approach used to others for other discussions.	Baseline (immediately following appointment); 2 weeks post appointment
Decisional conflict scale (DCS)	The 16 items of DCS are scored on a 0-4 scale where higher scores are reflective of uncertainty about treatment choice.	Baseline (immediately following appointment); 2 weeks post appointment

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Mayo Clinic
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Konstantinos Leventakos, M.D., Ph.D., Mayo Clinic in Rochester

Publications and helpful links

Helpful Links

• Mayo Clinic Clinical Trials

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): November 20, 2023
• Primary Completion (Estimated): October 31, 2026
• Study Completion (Estimated): October 31, 2026

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: October 30, 2023
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: November 2, 2023
• First Posted (Actual): November 8, 2023

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): March 10, 2026
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 6, 2026
• Last Verified: March 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Neoplasms by Site; Neoplasms; Respiratory Tract Diseases; Lung Diseases; Respiratory Tract Neoplasms; Thoracic Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Bronchogenic; Bronchial Neoplasms; Lung Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Health Services Administration; Health Care Quality, Access, and Evaluation; Quality of Health Care; Quality Indicators, Health Care; Technology, Industry, and Agriculture; Guidelines as Topic; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Technology; Tape Recording; Audiovisual Aids; Educational Technology; Television; Standard of Care; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Videotape Recording; Sound Recordings
• Other Study ID Numbers: 23-003089 (Other Identifier: Mayo Clinic in Rochester); NCI-2023-07463 (Registry Identifier: CTRP (Clinical Trial Reporting Program))

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No
• product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.: No