Evaluation of a Patient-Centered Decision-Making Support Tool for Older Adults With Advanced Breast Cancer and Their Care Partners (PCDM)

The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility for a patient centered decision-making support tool for older adults with metastatic breast cancer and their care partners.

Study Overview

• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Conditions: Metastatic Breast Cancer
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Decision-making support tool

Detailed Description

The primary objective (Aim 1) of this study will be to evaluate feasibility of utilizing the patient-centered decision-making (PCDM) tool for older adults with metastatic breast cancer (mBC). The PCDM tool has been developed by the investigators in collaboration with Manta Cares, Inc. During the development process, we have integrated Geriatric Assessment (GA), completed fully by patients, into the PCDM tool, along with potential supportive care strategies (e.g., recommendations) that could be considered by patients and their care partners if areas of impairment are noted on the GA embedded into the PDCM tool. Feasibility of the adapted PCDM tool will be assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively, and through mixed methods (integrating quantitative and qualitative data) to provide a deeper understanding of aspects of implementation across settings.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Estimated): 150
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

• Study Contact: Name: Dr. Allison Magnuson Principal Investigator; Phone Number: (585) 275-5823; Email: Allison_magnuson@urmc.rochester.edu

Study Locations

• United States
  • New York
    • Rochester, New York, United States, 14620
      • University of Rochester

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Older Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

Patient Inclusion Criteria:

1. A diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer
2. Age 65 or older
3. Currently receiving systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer or considering a plan to initiate systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer
4. Able to speak and read English (because the Manta Cares platform is presently only offered in English only)
5. Able to provide informed consent

Care Partner Inclusion Criteria:

1. Age 18 or older
2. Able to speak and read English (because the Manta Cares platform is presently only offered in English only)
3. Able to provide informed consent
4. Verbal permission from patient to enroll their designated care partner

Exclusion Criteria:

Patient Exclusion Criteria:

1. Early-stage breast cancer
2. Diagnosis of any other cancer besides metastatic breast cancer

Care Partner Exclusion Criteria:

1. Verbal permission from patient to enroll care partner not received.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

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

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Patient and care partner Acceptability of Intervention (AIM)	Measure different aspects of intervention implementation. The AIM, IAM, and FIM measures were jointly developed through a consensus process involving 63 experts (e.g., implementation scientists, health professionals), and psychometric properties for the three scales have been established. All three scales were developed to evaluate fit or match of a potential intervention (acceptability measure evaluates personal fit to the individual, appropriateness measure evaluates the societal or technical fit, and the feasibility measure evaluates practical fit. Each scale has 4-items with a 5-point Likert scale response (total score 4-20 for each measure), for a total of 12 items for all three scales. No specialized training is needed to administer or score the measure and it is written at a 5th grade reading level. Although cut-off scores for interpretation are not available, higher scores indicate greater degree of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility respectively.	Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM)	Measure different aspects of intervention implementation. The AIM, IAM, and FIM measures were jointly developed through a consensus process involving 63 experts (e.g., implementation scientists, health professionals), and psychometric properties for the three scales have been established. All three scales were developed to evaluate fit or match of a potential intervention (acceptability measure evaluates personal fit to the individual, appropriateness measure evaluates the societal or technical fit, and the feasibility measure evaluates practical fit. Each scale has 4-items with a 5-point Likert scale response (total score 4-20 for each measure), for a total of 12 items for all three scales. No specialized training is needed to administer or score the measure and it is written at a 5th grade reading level. Although cut-off scores for interpretation are not available, higher scores indicate greater degree of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility respectively.	Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Feasibility of Intervention (FIM)	Measure different aspects of intervention implementation. The AIM, IAM, and FIM measures were jointly developed through a consensus process involving 63 experts (e.g., implementation scientists, health professionals), and psychometric properties for the three scales have been established. All three scales were developed to evaluate fit or match of a potential intervention (acceptability measure evaluates personal fit to the individual, appropriateness measure evaluates the societal or technical fit, and the feasibility measure evaluates practical fit. Each scale has 4-items with a 5-point Likert scale response (total score 4-20 for each measure), for a total of 12 items for all three scales. No specialized training is needed to administer or score the measure and it is written at a 5th grade reading level. Although cut-off scores for interpretation are not available, higher scores indicate greater degree of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility respectively.	Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Patient Activation Measure-13 (PAM-13)	The PAM 13 (originally developed as a 22-item measure and later modified to 13 items) is a valid and reliable tool to measure stages of activation, including belief that the patient role is important and having the confidence and knowledge to take action. The PAM-13 is scored 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater patient activation.	Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (DSE)	The DSE scale measures self-confidence and belief in one's abilities in decision-making. The 11-item questionnaire assesses confidence in aspects such as ability to get the facts about treatment options available, including choices and benefits and side effects of choices, and ability to understand the information and ask questions/express concerns. Scoring is converted to a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy in decision-making. Prior studies suggest that scores below 70 were observed in patients who were significantly less likely to engage in shared decision-making and more likely to report decision regret later.43-45 This measure has been utilized in other studies of patients with advanced cancer.	Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9)	The SDM-Q-9 measures the extent to which patients are involved in the process of decision-making from the perspective of the patient. The instrument has 9 questions and is a reliable and well accepted, with high internal consistency and discriminative validity. The measure is scored on a scale of 0-100 and can be used to assess longitudinal change in shared decision making in clinical settings with an MCID of 4 points used in prior studies.	Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Caregiver Activation Measure (CG-PAM)	Caregiver Activation Measure: A measure that was developed and validated to assess care partner's' knowledge, skill, and confidence for self-management of a chronic medical condition. Greater degrees of activation (e.g., higher degree of knowledge, skill, and confidence) can facilitate the shared decision-making process.	Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Heath Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ)	The HCCQ is a measure of satisfaction with communication that evaluates patients and care partners perceptions of autonomy support and shared decision making and evaluates whether they feel their oncology clinician(s) understand their perspective, provides choices, and encourage participation in decisions. The HCCQ measure has been validated in older adult populations. The full HCCQ scale has a reliability of >0.9. The six-item version will be utilized, which has demonstrated excellent internal consistency and construct validity in the oncology setting.	Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Rochester

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Estimated): August 1, 2026
• Primary Completion (Estimated): July 1, 2027
• Study Completion (Estimated): August 1, 2027

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: May 14, 2026
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 14, 2026
• First Posted (Actual): May 20, 2026

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): May 26, 2026
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 21, 2026
• Last Verified: May 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Neoplasms by Site; Neoplasms; Skin Diseases; Breast Diseases; Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases; Breast Neoplasms
• Other Study ID Numbers: UOCPC25063; STUDY00010968 (Other Identifier: University of Rochester)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: YES

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No