- ICH GCP
- Registre américain des essais cliniques
- Essai clinique NCT07599618
Evaluation of a Patient-Centered Decision-Making Support Tool for Older Adults With Advanced Breast Cancer and Their Care Partners (PCDM)
21 mai 2026 mis à jour par: 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.
Aperçu de l'étude
Statut
Pas encore de recrutement
Les conditions
Intervention / Traitement
Description détaillée
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.
Type d'étude
Interventionnel
Inscription (Estimé)
150
Phase
- N'est pas applicable
Contacts et emplacements
Cette section fournit les coordonnées de ceux qui mènent l'étude et des informations sur le lieu où cette étude est menée.
Coordonnées de l'étude
- Nom: Dr. Allison Magnuson Principal Investigator
- Numéro de téléphone: (585) 275-5823
- E-mail: Allison_magnuson@urmc.rochester.edu
Lieux d'étude
-
-
New York
-
Rochester, New York, États-Unis, 14620
- University of Rochester
-
-
Critères de participation
Les chercheurs recherchent des personnes qui correspondent à une certaine description, appelée critères d'éligibilité. Certains exemples de ces critères sont l'état de santé général d'une personne ou des traitements antérieurs.
Critère d'éligibilité
Âges éligibles pour étudier
- Adulte plus âgé
Accepte les volontaires sains
Non
La description
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.
Plan d'étude
Cette section fournit des détails sur le plan d'étude, y compris la façon dont l'étude est conçue et ce que l'étude mesure.
Comment l'étude est-elle conçue ?
Détails de conception
- Objectif principal: Soins de soutien
- Répartition: Non randomisé
- Modèle interventionnel: Affectation à un seul groupe
- Masquage: Aucun (étiquette ouverte)
Que mesure l'étude ?
Principaux critères de jugement
Mesure des résultats |
Description de la mesure |
Délai |
|---|---|---|
|
Patient and care partner Acceptability of Intervention (AIM)
Délai: 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)
Délai: 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)
Délai: 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)
|
Mesures de résultats secondaires
Mesure des résultats |
Description de la mesure |
Délai |
|---|---|---|
|
Patient Activation Measure-13 (PAM-13)
Délai: 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)
Délai: 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)
Délai: 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)
Délai: 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)
Délai: 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)
|
Collaborateurs et enquêteurs
C'est ici que vous trouverez les personnes et les organisations impliquées dans cette étude.
Parrainer
Dates d'enregistrement des études
Ces dates suivent la progression des dossiers d'étude et des soumissions de résultats sommaires à ClinicalTrials.gov. Les dossiers d'étude et les résultats rapportés sont examinés par la Bibliothèque nationale de médecine (NLM) pour s'assurer qu'ils répondent à des normes de contrôle de qualité spécifiques avant d'être publiés sur le site Web public.
Dates principales de l'étude
Début de l'étude (Estimé)
1 août 2026
Achèvement primaire (Estimé)
1 juillet 2027
Achèvement de l'étude (Estimé)
1 août 2027
Dates d'inscription aux études
Première soumission
14 mai 2026
Première soumission répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité
14 mai 2026
Première publication (Réel)
20 mai 2026
Mises à jour des dossiers d'étude
Dernière mise à jour publiée (Réel)
26 mai 2026
Dernière mise à jour soumise répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité
21 mai 2026
Dernière vérification
1 mai 2026
Plus d'information
Termes liés à cette étude
Termes MeSH pertinents supplémentaires
Autres numéros d'identification d'étude
- UOCPC25063
- STUDY00010968 (Autre identifiant: University of Rochester)
Plan pour les données individuelles des participants (IPD)
Prévoyez-vous de partager les données individuelles des participants (DPI) ?
OUI
Informations sur les médicaments et les dispositifs, documents d'étude
Étudie un produit pharmaceutique réglementé par la FDA américaine
Non
Étudie un produit d'appareil réglementé par la FDA américaine
Non
Ces informations ont été extraites directement du site Web clinicaltrials.gov sans aucune modification. Si vous avez des demandes de modification, de suppression ou de mise à jour des détails de votre étude, veuillez contacter register@clinicaltrials.gov. Dès qu'un changement est mis en œuvre sur clinicaltrials.gov, il sera également mis à jour automatiquement sur notre site Web .