- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Klinisk forsøg NCT07599618
Evaluation of a Patient-Centered Decision-Making Support Tool for Older Adults With Advanced Breast Cancer and Their Care Partners (PCDM)
21. maj 2026 opdateret af: Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester
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.
Studieoversigt
Status
Ikke rekrutterer endnu
Betingelser
Intervention / Behandling
Detaljeret beskrivelse
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.
Undersøgelsestype
Interventionel
Tilmelding (Anslået)
150
Fase
- Ikke anvendelig
Kontakter og lokationer
Dette afsnit indeholder kontaktoplysninger for dem, der udfører undersøgelsen, og oplysninger om, hvor denne undersøgelse udføres.
Studiekontakt
- Navn: Dr. Allison Magnuson Principal Investigator
- Telefonnummer: (585) 275-5823
- E-mail: Allison_magnuson@urmc.rochester.edu
Studiesteder
-
-
New York
-
Rochester, New York, Forenede Stater, 14620
- University of Rochester
-
-
Deltagelseskriterier
Forskere leder efter personer, der passer til en bestemt beskrivelse, kaldet berettigelseskriterier. Nogle eksempler på disse kriterier er en persons generelle helbredstilstand eller tidligere behandlinger.
Berettigelseskriterier
Aldre berettiget til at studere
- Ældre voksen
Tager imod sunde frivillige
Ingen
Beskrivelse
Inclusion Criteria:
Patient Inclusion Criteria:
- A diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer
- Age 65 or older
- Currently receiving systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer or considering a plan to initiate systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer
- Able to speak and read English (because the Manta Cares platform is presently only offered in English only)
- Able to provide informed consent
Care Partner Inclusion Criteria:
- Age 18 or older
- Able to speak and read English (because the Manta Cares platform is presently only offered in English only)
- Able to provide informed consent
- Verbal permission from patient to enroll their designated care partner
Exclusion Criteria:
Patient Exclusion Criteria:
- Early-stage breast cancer
- Diagnosis of any other cancer besides metastatic breast cancer
Care Partner Exclusion Criteria:
1. Verbal permission from patient to enroll care partner not received.
Studieplan
Dette afsnit indeholder detaljer om studieplanen, herunder hvordan undersøgelsen er designet, og hvad undersøgelsen måler.
Hvordan er undersøgelsen tilrettelagt?
Design detaljer
- Primært formål: Støttende pleje
- Tildeling: Ikke-randomiseret
- Interventionel model: Enkelt gruppeopgave
- Maskning: Ingen (Åben etiket)
Hvad måler undersøgelsen?
Primære resultatmål
Resultatmål |
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse |
Tidsramme |
|---|---|---|
|
Patient and care partner Acceptability of Intervention (AIM)
Tidsramme: 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)
|
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)
Tidsramme: 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)
|
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)
Tidsramme: 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)
|
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)
|
Sekundære resultatmål
Resultatmål |
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse |
Tidsramme |
|---|---|---|
|
Patient Activation Measure-13 (PAM-13)
Tidsramme: 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)
|
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)
Tidsramme: 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)
|
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)
Tidsramme: 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)
|
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)
Tidsramme: 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: 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)
Tidsramme: 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)
|
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)
|
Samarbejdspartnere og efterforskere
Det er her, du vil finde personer og organisationer, der er involveret i denne undersøgelse.
Sponsor
Datoer for undersøgelser
Disse datoer sporer fremskridtene for indsendelser af undersøgelsesrekord og resumeresultater til ClinicalTrials.gov. Studieregistreringer og rapporterede resultater gennemgås af National Library of Medicine (NLM) for at sikre, at de opfylder specifikke kvalitetskontrolstandarder, før de offentliggøres på den offentlige hjemmeside.
Studer store datoer
Studiestart (Anslået)
1. august 2026
Primær færdiggørelse (Anslået)
1. juli 2027
Studieafslutning (Anslået)
1. august 2027
Datoer for studieregistrering
Først indsendt
14. maj 2026
Først indsendt, der opfyldte QC-kriterier
14. maj 2026
Først opslået (Faktiske)
20. maj 2026
Opdateringer af undersøgelsesjournaler
Sidste opdatering sendt (Faktiske)
26. maj 2026
Sidste opdatering indsendt, der opfyldte kvalitetskontrolkriterier
21. maj 2026
Sidst verificeret
1. maj 2026
Mere information
Begreber relateret til denne undersøgelse
Yderligere relevante MeSH-vilkår
Andre undersøgelses-id-numre
- UOCPC25063
- STUDY00010968 (Anden identifikator: University of Rochester)
Plan for individuelle deltagerdata (IPD)
Planlægger du at dele individuelle deltagerdata (IPD)?
JA
Lægemiddel- og udstyrsoplysninger, undersøgelsesdokumenter
Studerer et amerikansk FDA-reguleret lægemiddelprodukt
Ingen
Studerer et amerikansk FDA-reguleret enhedsprodukt
Ingen
Disse oplysninger blev hentet direkte fra webstedet clinicaltrials.gov uden ændringer. Hvis du har nogen anmodninger om at ændre, fjerne eller opdatere dine undersøgelsesoplysninger, bedes du kontakte register@clinicaltrials.gov. Så snart en ændring er implementeret på clinicaltrials.gov, vil denne også blive opdateret automatisk på vores hjemmeside .