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

November 14, 2023 updated by: Mayo Clinic

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

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

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

Study Locations

    • Minnesota
      • Rochester, Minnesota, United States, 55905
        • Mayo Clinic in Rochester
        • Contact:
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Konstantinos Leventakos, M.D., Ph.D.

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

  • 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

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

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.
Ancillary studies
Receive standard of care
Other Names:
  • standard of care
  • standard therapy
Ancillary studies
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.
Ancillary studies
Receive standard of care
Other Names:
  • standard of care
  • standard therapy
Ancillary studies
Ancillary studies
Use shared decision-making conversation tool

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Effectiveness of the intervention on implementing shared decision making
Time Frame: Baseline (immediately following appointment); 2 weeks post appointment
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
Time Frame: Baseline (immediately following appointment); 2 weeks post appointment
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
Time Frame: After each encounter for the duration of the study, until accrual is reached
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
Time Frame: Baseline (immediately following appointment); 2 weeks post appointment
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
Time Frame: Baseline (immediately following appointment); 2 weeks post appointment
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)
Time Frame: Baseline (immediately following appointment); 2 weeks post appointment
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

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

Sponsor

Investigators

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

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

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 (Estimated)

January 1, 2024

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)

November 15, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 14, 2023

Last Verified

November 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

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

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 Lung Non-Small Cell Carcinoma

Clinical Trials on Survey Administration

3
Subscribe