Cancer
Conditions
Keywords
advance care planning
Brief summary
Through close engagement with our patient and family member co-investigators, the investigators have developed a video-based advance care planning aid for cancer patients and their family members who are preparing for major surgery. In this study, patients are randomized to see either the intervention video (involving advance care planning-related content) or a control video (no advance care planning-related content) prior to surgery. The investigators hypothesize that the video will lead to more and better preoperative discussions between the patient and surgeon that are related to advance care planning. The investigators also hypothesize that seeing the advance care planning-related video will decrease perioperative anxiety and depression scores.
Detailed description
Many cancer patients pursue aggressive surgery in the hope of cancer cure or life prolongation. However, in doing so, patients and families may avoid advance care planning; they do not discuss specific goals and wishes should disease progress despite surgery. Moreover, a subset of patients become critically ill following surgery, and family members must make life-and-death decisions without knowing patient wishes. Preoperative advance care planning-facilitating patient and family discussions concerning perioperative goals, hopes, and fears-could empower patients and families to better choose which therapies and procedures they want outside of the initial surgery and for the months following surgery. Advance care planning aids exist, but none were developed for or evaluated in a surgical patient population. Furthermore, video-based advance care planning tools are an innovative way to better empower patients and families. Previous research shows that, with the aid of an advance care planning video, patients and families are more knowledgeable about treatment options and more comfortable with making decisions. Moreover, when better educated, these patients and families frequently choose less aggressive therapies. However, video-based advance care planning tools have not been developed or tested in a surgical patient population. The investigators have developed and now will evaluate a video-based advance care planning aid for cancer patients and families pursing aggressive surgical cancer treatment. The investigators hypothesize that, in patients and family members, the video-based decision aid will facilitate better preoperative discussions about advance care planning between the patient and surgeon and decrease anxiety and depression after surgery.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALAdvance care planning video
This is a video involving interviews with patients, a family member, two surgeons, an anesthesiologist, and an ICU nurse; these interviewees describe the typical events during a hospitalization for a major surgery and encourage the viewer to do some planning before surgery - the planning includes: (i) naming a person to make decisions for the participant, (ii) having a conversation with that person about goals and values, and (iii) continuing that conversation with the participant's surgeon.
BEHAVIORALControl video
This is a video showing the history of The Johns Hopkins Hospital and emphasizing that The Johns Hopkins Hospital is a great place to receive medical care.
Sponsors
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patients aged 18 and older of study surgeons who are scheduled to have a surgical procedure identified by study surgeons to the study team. * Patients willing to give informed consent, ability to speak English, reasonably able to read a newspaper or book (without sight impairment); reasonable able to listen to radio, television (without hearing impairment).
Exclusion criteria
* Age \<18 years old, non-English speaking patients who are not identified by participating surgeons
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Measured ACP Content in the Presurgical Consent Visit | Approximately one week after study enrollment. | The RIAS scoring system using an audio-recording of a conversation to evaluate conversation content. |
| Measured Patient Centeredness in the Presurgical Consent Visit | Approximately one week after study enrollment. | The RIAS scoring system using an audio-recording of a conversation to evaluate the nature of the conversation between surgeon and patient. The patient-centeredness summary score is a ratio of statements that reflect the psychosocial and socio-emotional elements of exchange about the lived illness experience of patients relative to statements that reflect a more biomedical and disease focused perspective. This score reflects the encounter as a whole, rather than an individual's dialogue. A value greater than one indicates a more patient-centered encounter; whereas, a value less than one indicates a more biomedical encounter. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Helpfulness of the Video Across Study Arms | One week after enrollment | This Likert scale evaluates respondent beliefs about the helpfulness of the video. |
| Comfort With the Video Across Study Arms | One week after enrollment | This Likert scale evaluates respondent beliefs about their comfort in viewing the video. |
| Recommendation of the Video to Others Across Study Arms | One week after enrollment | This Likert scale evaluates respondent beliefs about whether they would recommend the video to others. |
| Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Enrollment, one week after enrollment, one week after surgery, one month after surgery | This validated metric consists of two sub scales: one for symptoms of anxiety, and the other for symptoms of depression. Each subscale, consisting of seven questions, results in a score ranging from 0, indicating no distress, to 21, indicating maximum distress; a score higher than 7 indicates clinically meaningful anxiety or depression. Overall HADS scores, encompassing both subscales, results in a total score of 0 (no mood symptoms ) to 42 (maximal mood symptoms). |
| Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having Named a Surrogate Decision Maker Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Enrollment, one month after surgery | This tracks which participants report having named a surrogate decision maker |
| Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Enrollment, one month after surgery | This tracks which participants report having had an advance care planning-related conversation with their surrogate decision maker. |
| Patient and Provider Satisfaction Scores Across Study Arms | One week after enrollment | The satisfaction score, as the sum of the scores of six questions (all in Likert scale), ranges from 6 to 30, with a higher score indicating higher level of satisfaction. |
| Iowa Goals of Care Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Enrollment, one week after enrollment, one week after surgery, one month after surgery | This metric enables respondents to verify why they are seeking medical care. The most selected goal at all visits was Cure my medical condition. We have reported the number of participants in each group who selected this goal at each time point. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Intervention Advance care planning video
Advance care planning video: This is a video involving interviews with patients, a family member, two surgeons, an anesthesiologist, and an ICU nurse; these interviewees describe the typical events during a hospitalization for a major surgery and encourage the viewer to do some planning before surgery - the planning includes: (i) naming a person to make decisions for the participant, (ii) having a conversation with that person about goals and values, and (iii) continuing that conversation with the participant's surgeon. | 45 |
| Control Control video - no advance care planning content
Control video: This is a video showing the history of The Johns Hopkins Hospital and emphasizing that The Johns Hopkins Hospital is a great place to receive medical care. | 47 |
| Total | 92 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Death | 0 | 1 |
| Overall Study | Failure to Maintain Eligibility | 4 | 6 |
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 4 | 1 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawal by Subject | 1 | 1 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Intervention | Total | Control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 61.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13 | 60.4 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.7 | 59.5 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.4 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 2 Participants | 3 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 43 Participants | 89 Participants | 46 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Primary Diagnosis Colon Cancer | 5 Participants | 8 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Primary Diagnosis Gynecological Cancers | 6 Participants | 12 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Primary Diagnosis Hepatobiliary and other Gastrointestinal Cancer | 9 Participants | 25 Participants | 16 Participants |
| Primary Diagnosis Other | 3 Participants | 5 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Primary Diagnosis Pancreatic Cancer | 15 Participants | 29 Participants | 14 Participants |
| Primary Diagnosis Sarcoma | 7 Participants | 13 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 1 Participants | 2 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 6 Participants | 10 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 38 Participants | 79 Participants | 41 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 27 Participants | 58 Participants | 31 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 18 Participants | 34 Participants | 16 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 45 | 0 / 47 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 45 | 0 / 47 |
Outcome results
Primary
Measured ACP Content in the Presurgical Consent Visit
The RIAS scoring system using an audio-recording of a conversation to evaluate conversation content.
Time frame: Approximately one week after study enrollment.
Population: Of note, the sample size is smaller for this outcome as our study did not collect recordings for all participants enrolled at the baseline visit. The reasons we did not collect the recordings include scheduling of emergent surgery without time to record, human and technology error, and patient preference.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_UNITS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Measured ACP Content in the Presurgical Consent Visit | Death (Long-Term) | 6 Recordings |
| Intervention | Measured ACP Content in the Presurgical Consent Visit | Video | 2 Recordings |
| Intervention | Measured ACP Content in the Presurgical Consent Visit | Goals | 10 Recordings |
| Intervention | Measured ACP Content in the Presurgical Consent Visit | Alternate Medical Decision Maker | 7 Recordings |
| Control | Measured ACP Content in the Presurgical Consent Visit | Alternate Medical Decision Maker | 3 Recordings |
| Control | Measured ACP Content in the Presurgical Consent Visit | Death (Long-Term) | 5 Recordings |
| Control | Measured ACP Content in the Presurgical Consent Visit | Goals | 8 Recordings |
| Control | Measured ACP Content in the Presurgical Consent Visit | Video | 1 Recordings |
Primary
Measured Patient Centeredness in the Presurgical Consent Visit
The RIAS scoring system using an audio-recording of a conversation to evaluate the nature of the conversation between surgeon and patient. The patient-centeredness summary score is a ratio of statements that reflect the psychosocial and socio-emotional elements of exchange about the lived illness experience of patients relative to statements that reflect a more biomedical and disease focused perspective. This score reflects the encounter as a whole, rather than an individual's dialogue. A value greater than one indicates a more patient-centered encounter; whereas, a value less than one indicates a more biomedical encounter.
Time frame: Approximately one week after study enrollment.
Population: Audio recordings of a presurgical consent visit conversation between a surgeon and patient.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Measured Patient Centeredness in the Presurgical Consent Visit | 0.70 Patient Centeredness Score | Standard Deviation 0.34 |
| Control | Measured Patient Centeredness in the Presurgical Consent Visit | 0.69 Patient Centeredness Score | Standard Deviation 0.28 |
Comparison: We employed two ways of interpreting this data. The first treats the outcome continuously, which is described in the results section. Here we describe the outcome treating it as a ratio. We created a variable representing the numerator of the ratio (type 1) and the denominator of the ratio (type 2) thereby treating the information in both the numerator and denominator as random (each a Poisson variable).p-value: 0.54595% CI: [0.87, 1.3]Poisson model using GEE
Secondary
Comfort With the Video Across Study Arms
This Likert scale evaluates respondent beliefs about their comfort in viewing the video.
Time frame: One week after enrollment
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Comfort With the Video Across Study Arms | Very Comfortable | 25 Participants |
| Intervention | Comfort With the Video Across Study Arms | Somewhat Comfortable | 7 Participants |
| Intervention | Comfort With the Video Across Study Arms | Somewhat Uncomfortable | 2 Participants |
| Intervention | Comfort With the Video Across Study Arms | Very Uncomfortable | 0 Participants |
| Control | Comfort With the Video Across Study Arms | Very Uncomfortable | 0 Participants |
| Control | Comfort With the Video Across Study Arms | Very Comfortable | 22 Participants |
| Control | Comfort With the Video Across Study Arms | Somewhat Uncomfortable | 1 Participants |
| Control | Comfort With the Video Across Study Arms | Somewhat Comfortable | 8 Participants |
Secondary
Helpfulness of the Video Across Study Arms
This Likert scale evaluates respondent beliefs about the helpfulness of the video.
Time frame: One week after enrollment
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Helpfulness of the Video Across Study Arms | Very Helpful | 14 Participants |
| Intervention | Helpfulness of the Video Across Study Arms | A Little Helpful | 6 Participants |
| Intervention | Helpfulness of the Video Across Study Arms | Not Helpful | 0 Participants |
| Intervention | Helpfulness of the Video Across Study Arms | Somewhat Helpful | 14 Participants |
| Control | Helpfulness of the Video Across Study Arms | Not Helpful | 8 Participants |
| Control | Helpfulness of the Video Across Study Arms | Very Helpful | 12 Participants |
| Control | Helpfulness of the Video Across Study Arms | Somewhat Helpful | 9 Participants |
| Control | Helpfulness of the Video Across Study Arms | A Little Helpful | 2 Participants |
Secondary
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period
This validated metric consists of two sub scales: one for symptoms of anxiety, and the other for symptoms of depression. Each subscale, consisting of seven questions, results in a score ranging from 0, indicating no distress, to 21, indicating maximum distress; a score higher than 7 indicates clinically meaningful anxiety or depression. Overall HADS scores, encompassing both subscales, results in a total score of 0 (no mood symptoms ) to 42 (maximal mood symptoms).
Time frame: Enrollment, one week after enrollment, one week after surgery, one month after surgery
Population: At each milestone of data collection, a number of participants were unable to complete the HADS questionnaire due to one of a number of factors including complicated medical course, attrition, or loss of eligibility.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Week Visit (V3) | 11.5 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.8 |
| Intervention | Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | 9.6 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.1 |
| Intervention | Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | 9.4 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.1 |
| Intervention | Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Presurgical Consent Visit (V2) | 9.4 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 7 |
| Control | Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Presurgical Consent Visit (V2) | 9.3 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.5 |
| Control | Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Week Visit (V3) | 13.0 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.2 |
| Control | Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | 9.9 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.7 |
| Control | Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | 10.9 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.7 |
Secondary
Iowa Goals of Care Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period
This metric enables respondents to verify why they are seeking medical care. The most selected goal at all visits was Cure my medical condition. We have reported the number of participants in each group who selected this goal at each time point.
Time frame: Enrollment, one week after enrollment, one week after surgery, one month after surgery
Population: At each milestone of data collection, a number of participants were unable to complete the Iowa Goals of Care questionnaire due to one of a number of factors including complicated medical course, attrition, or loss of eligibility.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Iowa Goals of Care Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | 43 Participants |
| Intervention | Iowa Goals of Care Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Presurgical Consent Visit (V2) | 33 Participants |
| Intervention | Iowa Goals of Care Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Week Visit (V3) | 34 Participants |
| Intervention | Iowa Goals of Care Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | 34 Participants |
| Control | Iowa Goals of Care Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | 35 Participants |
| Control | Iowa Goals of Care Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | 46 Participants |
| Control | Iowa Goals of Care Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Week Visit (V3) | 34 Participants |
| Control | Iowa Goals of Care Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Presurgical Consent Visit (V2) | 29 Participants |
Secondary
Patient and Provider Satisfaction Scores Across Study Arms
The satisfaction score, as the sum of the scores of six questions (all in Likert scale), ranges from 6 to 30, with a higher score indicating higher level of satisfaction.
Time frame: One week after enrollment
Population: In two instances, the surgeon was unable to complete the satisfaction scale. This explains why there are fewer surgeon perceptions reported than patients.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Patient and Provider Satisfaction Scores Across Study Arms | Patient Self-Reported Satisfaction | 27.2 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.6 |
| Intervention | Patient and Provider Satisfaction Scores Across Study Arms | Surgeon Self-Reported Satisfaction | 24.9 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.9 |
| Control | Patient and Provider Satisfaction Scores Across Study Arms | Patient Self-Reported Satisfaction | 27.8 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.5 |
| Control | Patient and Provider Satisfaction Scores Across Study Arms | Surgeon Self-Reported Satisfaction | 24.1 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.7 |
Secondary
Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period
This tracks which participants report having had an advance care planning-related conversation with their surrogate decision maker.
Time frame: Enrollment, one month after surgery
Population: This question was only asked to participants who reported having designated a medical decision maker.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | No | 6 Participants |
| Intervention | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | Yes, over 6 months ago | 4 Participants |
| Intervention | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | Yes, within the last 6 months | 26 Participants |
| Intervention | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | No | 2 Participants |
| Intervention | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | Yes, over 6 months ago | 0 Participants |
| Intervention | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | Yes, within the last 6 months | 32 Participants |
| Control | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | Yes, over 6 months ago | 5 Participants |
| Control | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | No | 7 Participants |
| Control | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | No | 3 Participants |
| Control | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | Yes, over 6 months ago | 6 Participants |
| Control | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | Yes, within the last 6 months | 30 Participants |
| Control | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having a Conversation With Their Surrogate Decision Maker Regarding Advance Care Planning Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | Yes, within the last 6 months | 23 Participants |
Secondary
Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having Named a Surrogate Decision Maker Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period
This tracks which participants report having named a surrogate decision maker
Time frame: Enrollment, one month after surgery
Population: At each milestone of data collection, a number of participants were unable to complete the HADS questionnaire due to one of a number of factors including complicated medical course, attrition, or loss of eligibility.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having Named a Surrogate Decision Maker Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | Have Not Identified a Medical Decision Maker | 9 Participants |
| Intervention | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having Named a Surrogate Decision Maker Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | Have Identified a Medical Decision Maker | 36 Participants |
| Intervention | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having Named a Surrogate Decision Maker Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | Have Not Identified a Medical Decision Maker | 2 Participants |
| Intervention | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having Named a Surrogate Decision Maker Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | Have Identified a Medical Decision Maker | 34 Participants |
| Control | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having Named a Surrogate Decision Maker Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | Have Identified a Medical Decision Maker | 38 Participants |
| Control | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having Named a Surrogate Decision Maker Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | Have Not Identified a Medical Decision Maker | 11 Participants |
| Control | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having Named a Surrogate Decision Maker Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Postsurgical One Month Visit (V4) | Have Not Identified a Medical Decision Maker | 0 Participants |
| Control | Prevalence of Participants Who Acknowledge Having Named a Surrogate Decision Maker Across Study Arms Throughout the Study Period | Baseline Visit (V1) | Have Identified a Medical Decision Maker | 36 Participants |
Secondary
Recommendation of the Video to Others Across Study Arms
This Likert scale evaluates respondent beliefs about whether they would recommend the video to others.
Time frame: One week after enrollment
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Recommendation of the Video to Others Across Study Arms | Definitely Recommend | 21 Participants |
| Intervention | Recommendation of the Video to Others Across Study Arms | Probably Recommend | 11 Participants |
| Intervention | Recommendation of the Video to Others Across Study Arms | Probably Would Not Recommend | 2 Participants |
| Intervention | Recommendation of the Video to Others Across Study Arms | Definitely Would Not Recommend | 0 Participants |
| Control | Recommendation of the Video to Others Across Study Arms | Definitely Would Not Recommend | 1 Participants |
| Control | Recommendation of the Video to Others Across Study Arms | Definitely Recommend | 16 Participants |
| Control | Recommendation of the Video to Others Across Study Arms | Probably Would Not Recommend | 4 Participants |
| Control | Recommendation of the Video to Others Across Study Arms | Probably Recommend | 10 Participants |