Learning Theory Patient Education for Anticoagulants

November 17, 2023 updated by: Aubrey E. Jones, University of Utah

Patient Education for Anticoagulants Using Learning Theories - a Pilot Study

The goal of this study is to test the feasibility of a randomized control trial evaluating the educational tool for anticoagulated patients.

Participants will be randomized to use new educational materials or current existing educational materials and answer survey questions.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Eligible patients will be randomized using stratified block randomization to control for the type of anticoagulant (warfarin vs. DOAC) and status (naïve vs. experienced) to either the education intervention from Aim 2 or standard of care Data will be collected via online surveys before the intervention, immediately after, and then 3 months after the intervention.

Patients at the University of Utah Thrombosis Clinic will be recruited.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

68

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

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:

  • initiating (naïve) or currently taking (experienced) oral anticoagulants with an anticipated treatment duration of at least three months
  • Experienced patients will be eligible if they score less than 75% on the Anticoagulation Knowledge Test

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Deficits in cognitive abilities, sensory input, or language significant enough to impede their use of the education tool and/or provision of written informed consent

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: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Standard Care
Standard Educational process
This will be the current practice for patient education
Experimental: Education Intervention
New educational intervention
This includes new web-based patient educational materials that have been developed prior to the start of the study

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Feasibility of implementing a randomized control trial
Time Frame: 18 months
The study will be feasible if 1) the consent rate if 5 patients per month, 2) Proportion of patients completing the educational tool is 90%; 3) Loss to follow-up at three months is 20% or less
18 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Acceptability
Time Frame: 3 months
High acceptability based on self-reported questionnaires using Likert questions per the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability domains
3 months
Acceptability - Workflow Disruption
Time Frame: 18 months
2 questions to providers asking to rate how much a) the study disrupted their workflow and b) how much the educational tool disrupted their workflow on a scale from 1- Very disruptive to 5 - Not all disruptive. Higher scores are better outcomes
18 months
Acceptability - Satisfaction
Time Frame: 3 months
Patients and providers will both complete a 5 point Likert scale asking how satisfied they are with the educational materials, with 1 being Very dissatisfied and 5 being Very Satisfied.
3 months
Acceptability - Intervention/Survey Fatigue
Time Frame: 3 months
1 question measuring survey fatigue: 1) the length of surveys was a) too long, b) too short, c) just right and the number of surveys that were not filled out/not completed. If the majority of surveys are not completed or started, and the majority of patients answer that the length of surveys was too long, that will indicate high survey fatigue
3 months
Acceptability - Educational Tool
Time Frame: At time of intervention
This will be measured using an adapted version of the Ottawa Decision Aid Acceptability Measures which is a 10-question tool shortened to 5 questions that assess: 1) The way information is presented, 2) Length of the Materials, 3) Amount of information, 4) What was liked, and 5) Suggestions for improvement
At time of intervention

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Patient knowledge
Time Frame: 3 months
Anticoagulation Knowledge Test 28 item scale for patients taking warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant to assess their knowledge , Minimum score = 0, Max score = 28. Higher scores indicate more knowledge
3 months
Information overload
Time Frame: 3 months
adapted Cancer Information Overload Scale 5-item scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Minimum score = 5, maximum score = 20. The higher the score indicates higher information overload.
3 months
Adherence
Time Frame: 3 months
Visual Analog Rating Scale (VAS) asks patients to estimate in a specified time period (the 3 months of the study period), the percentage of medication doses that they have taken as prescribed (0-100%) Higher percentage means higher adherence.
3 months
Clinical outcomes
Time Frame: 3 months
Patients will report the number (if any) of thromboembolic (stroke, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary or systemic embolism), or bleeding events that they have had during the study period. We will also review patient charts to see if there are any reported events in the chart that are not reported by the patient. Bleeding events will be classified into major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) definitions. We will also monitor for any deaths that may occur.
3 months

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Aubrey E Jones, PharmD, MSCI, University of Utah

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)

June 1, 2024

Primary Completion (Estimated)

June 1, 2025

Study Completion (Estimated)

December 1, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

December 16, 2022

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 14, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

November 18, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

November 22, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 17, 2023

Last Verified

November 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • IRB_00146488
  • 1K23HL157751-01A1 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

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 Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice

Clinical Trials on Control Group: Standard of Care

3
Subscribe