Individualizing Disease Prevention for Middle-Aged Adults
2022年3月30日 更新者：Glen Taksler
The primary objective of this study is to help patients compare the benefits of various preventive care services, based on their individual risk factors (such as smoking status, obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.).
A tailored decision tool will be provided to each participant during primary care appointments to facilitate discussion between the participant and his/her provider regarding prioritizing preventive service recommendations.
調査の概要
研究の種類
介入
入学 (実際)
104
段階
- 適用できない
連絡先と場所
このセクションには、調査を実施する担当者の連絡先の詳細と、この調査が実施されている場所に関する情報が記載されています。
研究場所
-
-
Ohio
-
Cleveland、Ohio、アメリカ、44195
- Cleveland Clinic
-
-
参加基準
研究者は、適格基準と呼ばれる特定の説明に適合する人を探します。これらの基準のいくつかの例は、人の一般的な健康状態または以前の治療です。
適格基準
就学可能な年齢
45年～70年 (大人、高齢者)
健康ボランティアの受け入れ
はい
受講資格のある性別
全て
説明
Inclusion Criteria:
- Scheduled for an appointment with primary care provider during study period
- Two or more of the following risk factors:
- Tobacco use
- Overweight/obese
- Hypertension
- Hyperlipidemia
- Diabetes
- Alcohol Misuse
- Depression
- History of Sexually Transmitted Infection
- Being overdue for the following screenings: Colorectal, cervical, breast, lung
Exclusion Criteria:
- Severely limited life expectancy (cancer, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, end stage renal disease)
研究計画
このセクションでは、研究がどのように設計され、研究が何を測定しているかなど、研究計画の詳細を提供します。
研究はどのように設計されていますか？
デザインの詳細
- 主な目的：防止
- 割り当て：ランダム化
- 介入モデル：並列代入
- マスキング：なし（オープンラベル）
武器と介入
参加者グループ / アーム |
介入・治療 |
|---|---|
|
介入なし：コントロール
普段のお手入れ
|
|
|
実験的：Intervention
Individualized preventive care recommendations will be distributed to subjects.
|
Written material provided.
|
|
実験的：Development Phase
Non-randomized receipt of individualized preventive care recommendations
|
Written material provided.
|
この研究は何を測定していますか？
主要な結果の測定
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
Interest in Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations.
時間枠：Within 3 days of index primary care appointment.
|
Measured by individualized preventive service recommendations, tailored to patient's specific medical conditions. Measured by surveys. Survey question: "Overall, how helpful did you find the written materials (handouts)?" Ten point scale (minimum 1, maximum 10, higher score is better outcome) |
Within 3 days of index primary care appointment.
|
|
Interest in Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations.
時間枠：Within 3 days of index primary care appointment.
|
Measured by individualized preventive service recommendations, tailored to patient's specific medical conditions. Measured by surveys. Survey question: "In the future, would you like to see updated written materials (handouts)?" Ten point scale (minimum 1, maximum 10, higher score is better outcome) |
Within 3 days of index primary care appointment.
|
二次結果の測定
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
Use of Shared Decision Making.
時間枠：Within 3 days of index primary care appointment.
|
Measured by surveys.
Survey metric: Shared Decision Making (SDM)-Q-9 validated scale, converted to 100 point denominator 100 point scale (minimum 1, maximum 100, higher score is better outcome)
|
Within 3 days of index primary care appointment.
|
|
Patient Readiness to Change Health Behaviors.
時間枠：Within 3 days of index primary care appointment.
|
Measured by surveys.
Proportion of top-3 individualized preventive service recommendations ready to change over next 1 month Numerator: Number of top-3-ranked recommendations with score >=6 out of 7 on Likert scale for readiness to change over next 1 month (minimum=1, maximum=7, higher score was better) Denominator: The number of individualized preventive service recommendations provided to a patient or 3, whichever was lower
|
Within 3 days of index primary care appointment.
|
|
Patient Readiness to Change Health Behaviors
時間枠：Within 3 days of index primary care appointment
|
Measured by surveys Proportion of top-3 individualized preventive service recommendations ready to change over next 2-6 months Numerator: Number of top-3-ranked recommendations with score >=6 out of 7 on Likert scale for readiness to change over next 2-6 months (minimum=1, maximum=7, higher score was better) Denominator: The number of individualized preventive service recommendations provided to a patient or 3, whichever was lower
|
Within 3 days of index primary care appointment
|
|
Patient Readiness to Change Health Behaviors.
時間枠：Within 3 days of index primary care appointment
|
Measured by surveys Proportion of bottom-3 individualized preventive service recommendations ready to change over next 1 month Numerator: Number of bottom-3-ranked recommendations with score >=6 out of 7 on Likert scale for readiness to change over next 1 month (minimum=1, maximum=7, higher score was better) Denominator: The number of individualized preventive service recommendations provided to a patient or 3, whichever was lower
|
Within 3 days of index primary care appointment
|
|
Patient Readiness to Change Health Behaviors
時間枠：Within 3 days of index primary care appointment
|
Measured by surveys.
Proportion of bottom-3 individualized preventive service recommendations ready to change over next 2-6 months Numerator: Number of bottom-3-ranked recommendations with score >=6 out of 7 on Likert scale for readiness to change over next 2-6 months (minimum=1, maximum=7, higher score was better) Denominator: The number of individualized preventive service recommendations provided to a patient or 3, whichever was lower
|
Within 3 days of index primary care appointment
|
|
Decisional Comfort.
時間枠：Within 3 days of index primary care appointment.
|
Measured by surveys.
Survey metric: Decisional Conflict Scale (validated scale), converted to 100 point denominator 100 point scale (minimum 1, maximum 100, higher score is better outcome)
|
Within 3 days of index primary care appointment.
|
|
Preventive Care Outcomes for Patients.
時間枠：Within 1 year of index primary care appointment.
|
Number of participants with at least 1 follow-up encounter during the 1 year after an index encounter.
|
Within 1 year of index primary care appointment.
|
協力者と研究者
ここでは、この調査に関係する人々や組織を見つけることができます。
スポンサー
捜査官
- 主任研究者：Glen Taksler, PhD、The Cleveland Clinic
出版物と役立つリンク
研究に関する情報を入力する責任者は、自発的にこれらの出版物を提供します。これらは、研究に関連するあらゆるものに関するものである可能性があります。
一般刊行物
- Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, Cording E, Tomson D, Dodd C, Rollnick S, Edwards A, Barry M. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Oct;27(10):1361-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6. Epub 2012 May 23.
- Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):448-55. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.023. Epub 2008 Aug 27.
- Kriston L, Scholl I, Holzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Harter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jul;80(1):94-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034. Epub 2009 Oct 30.
- Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983 Jun;51(3):390-5. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.51.3.390. No abstract available.
- Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors. Am Psychol. 1992 Sep;47(9):1102-14. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.47.9.1102.
- Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R. Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Apr;12(2):93-9. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.2.93.
- Krist AH, Glenn BA, Glasgow RE, Balasubramanian BA, Chambers DA, Fernandez ME, Heurtin-Roberts S, Kessler R, Ory MG, Phillips SM, Ritzwoller DP, Roby DH, Rodriguez HP, Sabo RT, Sheinfeld Gorin SN, Stange KC; MOHR Study Group. Designing a valid randomized pragmatic primary care implementation trial: the my own health report (MOHR) project. Implement Sci. 2013 Jun 25;8:73. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-73.
- Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):663-71. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07303824. Epub 2007 Jul 24.
- Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):672-80. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07304449. Epub 2007 Jul 19.
- Glasgow RE, Kessler RS, Ory MG, Roby D, Gorin SS, Krist A. Conducting rapid, relevant research: lessons learned from the My Own Health Report project. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Aug;47(2):212-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.03.007. Epub 2014 Jun 18.
- Edwards A, Elwyn G. Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision. Health Expect. 2006 Dec;9(4):307-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00401.x.
- Nagykaldi Z, Aspy CB, Chou A, Mold JW. Impact of a Wellness Portal on the delivery of patient-centered preventive care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012 Mar-Apr;25(2):158-67. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2012.02.110130.
- Sepucha KR, Fagerlin A, Couper MP, Levin CA, Singer E, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. How does feeling informed relate to being informed? The DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making. 2010 Sep-Oct;30(5 Suppl):77S-84S. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10379647.
- Dillard AJ, Ferrer RA, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Risk perception measures' associations with behavior intentions, affect, and cognition following colon cancer screening messages. Health Psychol. 2012 Jan;31(1):106-13. doi: 10.1037/a0024787. Epub 2011 Aug 1.
- Phillips SM, Glasgow RE, Bello G, Ory MG, Glenn BA, Sheinfeld-Gorin SN, Sabo RT, Heurtin-Roberts S, Johnson SB, Krist AH; MOHR Study Group. Frequency and prioritization of patient health risks from a structured health risk assessment. Ann Fam Med. 2014 Nov-Dec;12(6):505-13. doi: 10.1370/afm.1717.
- Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A. Presenting research risks and benefits to parents: does format matter? Anesth Analg. 2010 Sep;111(3):718-23. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181e8570a. Epub 2010 Aug 4.
- Tait AR, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Voepel-Lewis T. Effect of various risk/benefit trade-offs on parents' understanding of a pediatric research study. Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):e1475-82. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-1796. Epub 2010 May 10.
- Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A. The effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun. 2010 Jul;15(5):487-501. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2010.492560.
- Lloyd A, Joseph-Williams N, Edwards A, Rix A, Elwyn G. Patchy 'coherence': using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC). Implement Sci. 2013 Sep 5;8:102. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-102.
- Taksler GB, Hu B, DeGrandis F Jr, Montori VM, Fagerlin A, Nagykaldi Z, Rothberg MB. Effect of Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations vs Usual Care on Patient Interest and Use of Recommendations: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Nov 1;4(11):e2131455. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.31455.
研究記録日
これらの日付は、ClinicalTrials.gov への研究記録と要約結果の提出の進捗状況を追跡します。研究記録と報告された結果は、国立医学図書館 (NLM) によって審査され、公開 Web サイトに掲載される前に、特定の品質管理基準を満たしていることが確認されます。
主要日程の研究
研究開始 (実際)
2017年2月22日
一次修了 (実際)
2020年3月12日
研究の完了 (実際)
2021年3月12日
試験登録日
最初に提出
2017年1月13日
QC基準を満たした最初の提出物
2017年1月13日
最初の投稿 (見積もり)
2017年1月18日
学習記録の更新
投稿された最後の更新 (実際)
2022年4月26日
QC基準を満たした最後の更新が送信されました
2022年3月30日
最終確認日
2022年3月1日
詳しくは
本研究に関する用語
その他の研究ID番号
- 16-854
個々の参加者データ (IPD) の計画
個々の参加者データ (IPD) を共有する予定はありますか?
いいえ
医薬品およびデバイス情報、研究文書
米国FDA規制医薬品の研究
いいえ
米国FDA規制機器製品の研究
いいえ
この情報は、Web サイト clinicaltrials.gov から変更なしで直接取得したものです。研究の詳細を変更、削除、または更新するリクエストがある場合は、register@clinicaltrials.gov。 までご連絡ください。 clinicaltrials.gov に変更が加えられるとすぐに、ウェブサイトでも自動的に更新されます。