Diese Seite wurde automatisch übersetzt und die Genauigkeit der Übersetzung wird nicht garantiert. Bitte wende dich an die englische Version für einen Quelltext.

Das Tool "Let's Talk Tech" zur Unterstützung der Entscheidungsfindung über den technologischen Gebrauch unterstützt

21. September 2026 aktualisiert von: Clara Berridge, University of Washington

Mechanistische Untersuchung der dyadischen Verhaltensintervention "Let's Talk Tech", um die Entscheidungsfindung über den technologischen Gebrauch zu unterstützen

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.

Studienübersicht

Status

Abgeschlossen

Bedingungen

Intervention / Behandlung

Detaillierte Beschreibung

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.

Studientyp

Interventionell

Einschreibung (Tatsächlich)

222

Phase

  • Unzutreffend

Kontakte und Standorte

Dieser Abschnitt enthält die Kontaktdaten derjenigen, die die Studie durchführen, und Informationen darüber, wo diese Studie durchgeführt wird.

Studienorte

  • Vereinigte Staaten
    • Washington
      • Seattle, Washington, Vereinigte Staaten, 98105
        • University of Washington

Teilnahmekriterien

Forscher suchen nach Personen, die einer bestimmten Beschreibung entsprechen, die als Auswahlkriterien bezeichnet werden. Einige Beispiele für diese Kriterien sind der allgemeine Gesundheitszustand einer Person oder frühere Behandlungen.

Zulassungskriterien

Studienberechtigtes Alter

18 Jahre und älter (Erwachsene, Älterer Erwachsener)

Akzeptiert gesunde Freiwillige

Nein

Studienberechtigte Geschlechter

Alle

Beschreibung

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

Studienplan

Dieser Abschnitt enthält Einzelheiten zum Studienplan, einschließlich des Studiendesigns und der Messung der Studieninhalte.

Wie ist die Studie aufgebaut?

Designdetails

  • Hauptzweck: Sonstiges
  • Zuteilung: Zufällig
  • Interventionsmodell: Parallele Zuordnung
  • Maskierung: Keine (Offenes Etikett)

Waffen und Interventionen

Teilnehmergruppe / Arm
Intervention / Behandlung
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.
Verhalten: 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.
Kein Eingriff: Usual care

This control group will receive usual care, which means they will complete no intervention.

Was misst die Studie?

Primäre Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
Preparedness to make technology decisions
Zeitfenster: 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
Zeitfenster: 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)
Zeitfenster: 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
Technology awareness
Zeitfenster: 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
Zeitfenster: 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
Zeitfenster: 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
Zeitfenster: 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
Zeitfenster: 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
Zeitfenster: 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
Had conversation about technology
Zeitfenster: 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

Sekundäre Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
Shared technology preferences
Zeitfenster: 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
Zeitfenster: 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
Zeitfenster: 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

Mitarbeiter und Ermittler

Hier finden Sie Personen und Organisationen, die an dieser Studie beteiligt sind.

Sponsor

University of Washington

Mitarbeiter

National Institute on Aging (NIA)

Ermittler

  • Hauptermittler: Clara Berridge, PhD, University of Washington

Studienaufzeichnungsdaten

Diese Daten verfolgen den Fortschritt der Übermittlung von Studienaufzeichnungen und zusammenfassenden Ergebnissen an ClinicalTrials.gov. Studienaufzeichnungen und gemeldete Ergebnisse werden von der National Library of Medicine (NLM) überprüft, um sicherzustellen, dass sie bestimmten Qualitätskontrollstandards entsprechen, bevor sie auf der öffentlichen Website veröffentlicht werden.

Haupttermine studieren

Studienbeginn (Tatsächlich)

7. Februar 2025

Primärer Abschluss (Tatsächlich)

25. August 2026

Studienabschluss (Tatsächlich)

25. August 2026

Studienanmeldedaten

Zuerst eingereicht

3. Januar 2025

Zuerst eingereicht, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt hat

7. Februar 2025

Zuerst gepostet (Tatsächlich)

10. Februar 2025

Studienaufzeichnungsaktualisierungen

Letztes Update gepostet (Tatsächlich)

25. September 2026

Letztes eingereichtes Update, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt

21. September 2026

Zuletzt verifiziert

1. August 2026

Mehr Informationen

Begriffe im Zusammenhang mit dieser Studie

Schlüsselwörter

Zusätzliche relevante MeSH-Bedingungen

Andere Studien-ID-Nummern

  • STUDY00020570
  • 1P30AG086562-01 (US NIH Stipendium/Vertrag)

Arzneimittel- und Geräteinformationen, Studienunterlagen

Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Arzneimittelprodukt

Nein

Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Geräteprodukt

Nein

Diese Informationen wurden ohne Änderungen direkt von der Website clinicaltrials.gov abgerufen. Wenn Sie Ihre Studiendaten ändern, entfernen oder aktualisieren möchten, wenden Sie sich bitte an register@clinicaltrials.gov. Sobald eine Änderung auf clinicaltrials.gov implementiert wird, wird diese automatisch auch auf unserer Website aktualisiert .

Abonnieren