The "Let's Talk Tech" Tool to Support Decision Making About Technology Use

August 20, 2026 updated by: Clara Berridge, University of Washington

Mechanistic Study of the "Let's Talk Tech" Dyadic Behavioral Intervention to Support Decision Making About Technology Use

The goal of this research is to educate people about different technologies to support care at home when someone is experiencing memory difficulties. "Let's Talk Tech" is a new tool to educate people about technologies commonly used to support care and monitor safety, and help families talk about their feelings about them to understand each other's perspectives. The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if "Let's Talk Tech" helps people feel more prepared to make decisions about technologies.

Researchers will compare Let's Talk Tech to usual care (no intervention) to see if Let's Talk Tech increases peoples' preparedness and confidence to make decisions about technologies.

All participants will:

  • Use the Let's Talk Tech web application together with their study partner that takes up to an hour or do nothing.
  • Complete two surveys. The second survey will be taken within 2 weeks of the first.

One participant in each pair will also take a 3rd short survey 3 months after the first.

Study Overview

Status

Active, not recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

The goal of this research is to help families understand digital health technology options to support dementia care at home so they can negotiate immediate decisions and future use in an informed way. This is a mechanism-focused trial of Let's Talk Tech (LTT), a single-use, self-administered intervention in the form of a web application. It targets education and interpersonal communication processes to enable informed decision making and planning for technology use that relieves care partners of the burden of making decisions without awareness of the person's preferences. Participants are people living with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (PLWD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and a care partner. The 120 enrolled dyads (60 per study group) will be randomly assigned to receive either the intervention or usual care control. The intervention is self-administered. All participants will complete measures at baseline and at post-test (2 weeks), and care partners will also complete them 3 months later. Aim 1 will test if LTT compared with usual care improves the hypothesized mechanisms of change that are care partners' technology awareness, understanding, communication satisfaction, and intention to honor the PLWD/MCI's preferences, as well as both care partner- and PLWD/MCI-reported dyadic alignment. Aim 2 will examine if and how those hypothesized mechanisms of change improve the post-test and 3-month primary outcomes of care partner preparedness, decisional conflict, and decision making confidence, and secondary outcomes of PLWD/MCI and care partner sharing of technology preferences beyond the dyad and their confidence that PLWD/MCI's preferences will be honored. Exploratory Aim 3 will examine how, with whom, and for what purpose dyad members share technology preferences and explore factors that vary for those who shared with providers vs. family/friends, with the hope of learning how to expand the reach of this intervention to activate dyads' entire care networks.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

240

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

  • United States
    • Washington
      • Seattle, Washington, United States, 98105
        • University of Washington

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

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria for Patients:

  • have mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia
  • age 55 or older
  • able to understand and speak English

Inclusion Criteria for Co-participants:

  • be identified by the patient as their primary support person
  • age 18 or older
  • able to understand and speak English
  • able to complete LTT together with their study partner at the same time

Exclusion Criteria:

  • None

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
Experimental: Let's Talk Tech intervention
The intervention group will complete the single use self-administered Let's Talk Tech intervention together as a dyad.
Behavioral: Let's Talk Tech
Let's Talk Tech is a self-administered dyadic education and communication tool delivered as a web application to support shared decision making about technology use.
No Intervention: Usual care
This control group will receive usual care, which means they will complete no intervention.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Technology awareness
Time Frame: baseline and 2-week post-test
Participant rates on a 5-point Likert scale [1="Very aware" to 5="Very unaware"] how aware they are about technologies available to support their partner's care and safety.
baseline and 2-week post-test
Technology understanding
Time Frame: baseline and 2-week post-test
4 items assess perceived understanding of each of 4 technologies featured in the intervention [1="Not at all" to 5="Completely"].
baseline and 2-week post-test
Perception of PLWD/MCI's technology understanding
Time Frame: baseline and 2-week post-test
4 items assess care partner's perception of how well their study partner understands of each of 4 technologies featured in the intervention [1="Not at all" to 5="Completely"].
baseline and 2-week post-test
Satisfaction with dyadic communication about technology
Time Frame: baseline and 2-week post-test
Participant rates on a 5-point Likert scale [1="Very satisfied" to 5="Very dissatisfied"] how satisfied they are with their discussion with their study partner about using technology to support their care or safety.
baseline and 2-week post-test
Intention to honor preferences
Time Frame: baseline and 2-week post-test
Participant rates on a 5-point Likert scale [1="Very likely" to 5="Very unlikely"] how likely they are to honor their partner's preferences for how technology is used in their care.
baseline and 2-week post-test
Dyadic alignment about technology use
Time Frame: baseline and 2-week post-test
Participant is asked how much they agree with their partner about using technologies to support their care [1="Not at all" to 5="Completely"].
baseline and 2-week post-test
Preparedness to make technology decisions
Time Frame: baseline, 2-week post-test and 3 months
This is one of the three primary outcomes that are not mechanisms of change variables. Participant rates on a 5-point Likert scale [1="Strongly agree" to 5="Strongly disagree"] how much they agree with the statement that they feel prepared to make decisions about technology use for their study partner.
baseline, 2-week post-test and 3 months
Decisional Conflict Scale
Time Frame: baseline, 2-week post-test and 3 months
This is one of the three primary outcomes that are not mechanisms of change variables. The Decisional Conflict Scale is a 16-item scale with 5 response categories [0= "Strongly agree" to 4="Strongly disagree"]. Higher scores reflect higher decisional conflict in decision making.
baseline, 2-week post-test and 3 months
Decision Making Confidence Scale (adapted)
Time Frame: baseline, 2-week post-test and 3 months
This is one of the three primary outcomes that are not mechanisms of change variables. This is a six-item scale with 5 response categories [0="Not confident at all" to 4= "Very confident"]. Higher scores reflect higher confidence in decision making.
baseline, 2-week post-test and 3 months
Had conversation about technology
Time Frame: baseline and 2-week post-test
Participant answers yes, no or unsure if they've ever had a conversation with their study partner about technology to support care or safety.
baseline and 2-week post-test

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Shared technology preferences
Time Frame: baseline, 2-week post-test and 3 months
Participant answer yes or no if they have ever shared the PLWD/MCI's preferences about technologies to support their care with anyone else.
baseline, 2-week post-test and 3 months
Confidence preferences will be honored
Time Frame: baseline, 2-week post-test and 3 months
Participant rates on a 5-point Likert scale [1=Strongly agree to 5=Strongly disagree] about their belief the PLWD/MCI's choices about these technologies will be honored.
baseline, 2-week post-test and 3 months
Satisfaction with involvement of primary participant in technology use decisions
Time Frame: baseline, 2-week post-test and 3 months
Participant rates on a 5-point Likert scale [1="Very satisfied" to 5="Very dissatisfied"] how satisfied they are with how involved the primary participant is in decisions about technology to support their care.
baseline, 2-week post-test and 3 months

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Sponsor

University of Washington

Collaborators

National Institute on Aging (NIA)

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Clara Berridge, PhD, University of Washington

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)

February 7, 2025

Primary Completion (Estimated)

September 1, 2026

Study Completion (Estimated)

October 1, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 3, 2025

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 7, 2025

First Posted (Actual)

February 10, 2025

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

August 21, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 20, 2026

Last Verified

August 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • STUDY00020570
  • 1P30AG086562-01 (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

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.

Subscribe