Skip to content

Mychoice: Testing an Interactive mHealth Tool

Mychoice: Testing an Interactive mHealth Tool to Enhance Communication and Informed Decision Making About Clinical Trial Participation in Cancer Patients

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03427177
Enrollment
257
Registered
2018-02-09
Start date
2018-06-25
Completion date
2020-02-28
Last updated
2021-01-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Conflict, Decisional Conflict

Brief summary

Investigators aim to test a culturally diverse and patient guided mHealth decision tool called mychoice, which allows patients to explore their concerns and questions related to clinical trial participation, as well as create a customized and personalized set of questions to enhance patient-provider communication and increase informed decision making. This study employs a mixed-methods approach using both qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate the effectiveness of the mychoice intervention for patients and to explore the provider and organizational factors that impact implementation. A randomized controlled trial will be performed with 270 participants in order to determine the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, as well as its effects on self-efficacy in discussing clinical trial participation with providers, leading to enhanced informed decision-making. A secondary aim of the study is to evaluate the implementation of the intervention in clinical settings. Implementation evaluation will occur using surveys of medical staff whose patients are participating in the study. These surveys will assess institutional facilitators and barriers to study implementation. Investigators will also conduct cognitive de-briefing interviews after the intervention is completed with key stakeholders at the participating institutions, which will inform a larger implementation study in the future.

Detailed description

Evidence shows that although clinical trials are aimed at producing new strategies for reducing cancer morbidity and mortality, participation remains sub-optimal for all populations, especially those from racial and ethnic groups. Although some interventions have been found to be effective at enhancing participation, few studies have tested tailored communication activities using innovative communication techniques (perceptual mapping) with aims to address barriers and facilitators for patients and facilitate more engaged discussions with their providers in real world settings. Participation in clinical trials is a serious and complex decision, and many patients of all races and backgrounds have limited knowledge and understanding of clinical trials as a treatment option. Although research has been conducted to explore the barriers to participation, there has been a call for more intervention research to address these barriers. A fundamental aspect of patient focused interventions is an exploration of their personal questions and concerns, without which it is difficult for patients to become empowered to participate in an informed or shared decision making process. However, there remains limited empirical research to suggest which messages are most salient to a diverse range of patients to improve decision making, and how decision tools can be tailored to enhance patient-provider communication. This research will provide insight into that process when the decision is participation in clinical trials. Evidence shows that ethnic and racial minorities are significantly underrepresented in clinical trials, which is critical to producing new strategies for reducing cancer morbidity and mortality for all populations. Recognizing the complexity of barriers to participation in clinical trials, research has focused on potential strategies to enhance participation. Interventions have shown that provider referrals of minority patients, community outreach, acknowledging and addressing issues of trust, flexibility in intervention methods, and population targeted materials are effective. Few studies, however, have tested tailored communication activities to address barriers and facilitators for patients using innovative communication techniques in real world settings - meaning ways these activities can be integrated into the healthcare workflow - or addressed the unique needs of racial and ethnic minorities. The mychoice communication tool begins to prepare patients to participate in a personal and tailored discussion with their provider about clinical trials as a potential treatment option. The tool is also customized to address the concerns of those least likely to participate, instead of providing a more general look at clinical trials- a common trait of other available tools. Previous research has shown that patient education before the first oncologist visit improves knowledge, attitudes, and preparation for decision making about clinical trials and integrating these tools into the clinical encounter is critical. In addition, using innovative communication techniques (perceptual mapping and vector modeling) to validate and explore notable messages across diverse cancer patients provided new insights into tailoring messages and personalizing patient/provider communication. Insight gained from validation of the intervention will improve the decision making process and inform a large scale integration of mychoice to affect patient perceptions and increase willingness to participate in clinical trials, especially in minority patients. In addition, Investigators will assess barriers to implementation when introducing the tool in diverse cancer centers, each with different protocols and patient populations, to inform a future proposal. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science (CFIR), one of the predominant implementation science research frameworks, we will focus on five domains: intervention characteristics, outer settings, inner setting, characteristics of individuals (patients and providers), and process. Implementation science is becoming an important component of intervention implementation and we aim to use this framework to ensure success.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALmychoice

The mychoice communication tool begins to prepare patients to participate in a personal and tailored discussion with their provider about clinical trials as a potential treatment option. It is also customized to address the concerns of those least likely to participate, instead of providing a more general look at clinical trials- a common trait of other available tools.

Sponsors

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
University of Pennsylvania
CollaboratorOTHER
Temple University
CollaboratorOTHER
Thomas Jefferson University
CollaboratorOTHER
Fox Chase Cancer Center
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* 18 years of age or over * Active diagnosis of invasive cancer (any diagnoses), pre or post chemo/radiation/surgery * Able to speak and read English

Exclusion criteria

* Participated in a therapeutic trial in the past

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI) Self-Efficacy Scale- Outcome Measure at Baseline, Post-test and One Month Follow-upBaseline and post-test (both occur on same day, day 1), one month follow-up10-item scale measuring patient confidence in communicating with their physician. Participants respond to each question on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 representing very confident,'' and 1 representing not at all confident. The range of possible scores for the full PEPPI scale is 10 to 50 (50 representing highest patient-perceived self-efficacy).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
CollaboRATE Perceived Shared Decision Making Scale1 month follow-upMeasure of patient perceptions of physician effort to discuss concerns, 3 items. There is a possible range of 0-9 for each item. Higher scores represent more shared decision making.
Shared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) Scale1 month follow-upMeasure of patient perception of shared decision making with provider (12 items). The instrument's statements are rated on a six-point scale from ''completely disagree'' (0) to ''completely agree'' (5). Higher means indicate higher levels of perceived shared decision making.
Ottawa Decisional ConflictBaseline and post-test (both occur on same day, day 1), one month follow-up13 item measure to determine patient clarity on the risks and benefits of clinical trials, support from friends and family, and patient decision regarding cancer treatment. Items are given a score value of: 0= 'strongly agree'; 2= 'neither agree nor disagree'; 3= 'disagree'; 4= 'strongly disagree' TOTAL SCORE 16 items \[items 1-16 are inclusive\] are: a) summed; b) divided by 16; and c) multiplied by 25. Scores range from 0 \[no decisional conflict\] to 100 \[extremely high decisional conflict\]
Preparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScalePost test (day 1)Measures preparedness of patient to make a decision (10 items) on a 1 not at all to 5 a great deal scale. Higher means indicated higher perceived level of preparation for decision making.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Treatment
Participants randomized to the treatment arm of the study will be given the mychoice tool. mychoice: The mychoice communication tool begins to prepare patients to participate in a personal and tailored discussion with their provider about clinical trials as a potential treatment option. It is also customized to address the concerns of those least likely to participate, instead of providing a more general look at clinical trials- a common trait of other available tools.
122
Control
Participants randomized to the control arm of the study will be given existing literature from the NCI that describes clinical trials (standard information for newly diagnosed cancer patients).
128
Total250

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTreatmentControlTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
54 Participants47 Participants101 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
68 Participants81 Participants149 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
5 Participants9 Participants14 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
101 Participants102 Participants203 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
16 Participants17 Participants33 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants2 Participants2 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
45 Participants50 Participants95 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
7 Participants3 Participants10 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
2 Participants4 Participants6 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
68 Participants68 Participants136 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
122 Participants128 Participants250 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
79 Participants79 Participants158 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
43 Participants49 Participants92 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 1220 / 128
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 1220 / 128
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 1220 / 128

Outcome results

Primary

Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI) Self-Efficacy Scale- Outcome Measure at Baseline, Post-test and One Month Follow-up

10-item scale measuring patient confidence in communicating with their physician. Participants respond to each question on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 representing very confident,'' and 1 representing not at all confident. The range of possible scores for the full PEPPI scale is 10 to 50 (50 representing highest patient-perceived self-efficacy).

Time frame: Baseline and post-test (both occur on same day, day 1), one month follow-up

Population: There was participant drop off between baseline, post-test, and follow-up.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
TreatmentPerceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI) Self-Efficacy Scale- Outcome Measure at Baseline, Post-test and One Month Follow-upBaseline44.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.8
TreatmentPerceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI) Self-Efficacy Scale- Outcome Measure at Baseline, Post-test and One Month Follow-upPost-test44.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.5
TreatmentPerceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI) Self-Efficacy Scale- Outcome Measure at Baseline, Post-test and One Month Follow-upFollow-up44.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6
ControlPerceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI) Self-Efficacy Scale- Outcome Measure at Baseline, Post-test and One Month Follow-upBaseline44.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.3
ControlPerceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI) Self-Efficacy Scale- Outcome Measure at Baseline, Post-test and One Month Follow-upPost-test44.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.1
ControlPerceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI) Self-Efficacy Scale- Outcome Measure at Baseline, Post-test and One Month Follow-upFollow-up44.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.3
Secondary

CollaboRATE Perceived Shared Decision Making Scale

Measure of patient perceptions of physician effort to discuss concerns, 3 items. There is a possible range of 0-9 for each item. Higher scores represent more shared decision making.

Time frame: 1 month follow-up

Population: Participants were only asked these questions if their doctor talked to them about participating in a clinical trial prior to completing follow-up.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
TreatmentCollaboRATE Perceived Shared Decision Making ScaleHow much effort was made to help you understand clinical trials?3.82 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.185
TreatmentCollaboRATE Perceived Shared Decision Making ScaleHow much effort was made to listen to the things that matter most to you about clinical trials?3.76 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
TreatmentCollaboRATE Perceived Shared Decision Making ScaleHow much effort was made to include what matters most to you in choosing what to do next?3.97 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.185
ControlCollaboRATE Perceived Shared Decision Making ScaleHow much effort was made to help you understand clinical trials?3.74 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.039
ControlCollaboRATE Perceived Shared Decision Making ScaleHow much effort was made to listen to the things that matter most to you about clinical trials?3.71 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.017
ControlCollaboRATE Perceived Shared Decision Making ScaleHow much effort was made to include what matters most to you in choosing what to do next?3.69 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.022
Secondary

Ottawa Decisional Conflict

13 item measure to determine patient clarity on the risks and benefits of clinical trials, support from friends and family, and patient decision regarding cancer treatment. Items are given a score value of: 0= 'strongly agree'; 2= 'neither agree nor disagree'; 3= 'disagree'; 4= 'strongly disagree' TOTAL SCORE 16 items \[items 1-16 are inclusive\] are: a) summed; b) divided by 16; and c) multiplied by 25. Scores range from 0 \[no decisional conflict\] to 100 \[extremely high decisional conflict\]

Time frame: Baseline and post-test (both occur on same day, day 1), one month follow-up

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
TreatmentOttawa Decisional ConflictBaseline32.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.8
TreatmentOttawa Decisional ConflictPost-test24.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 147
TreatmentOttawa Decisional ConflictFollow-up27.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.3
ControlOttawa Decisional ConflictBaseline31.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.5
ControlOttawa Decisional ConflictPost-test26.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.8
ControlOttawa Decisional ConflictFollow-up28.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.5
Secondary

Preparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) Scale

Measures preparedness of patient to make a decision (10 items) on a 1 not at all to 5 a great deal scale. Higher means indicated higher perceived level of preparation for decision making.

Time frame: Post test (day 1)

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
TreatmentPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHow much did the edu... Help you recognize that a decision needs to be made about clinical trials?3.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
TreatmentPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScalePrepare you to make a better decision about clinical trials?3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
TreatmentPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHelp you think about the pros and cons of treatment options?3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
TreatmentPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHelp you think about which pros and cons are most important?3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
TreatmentPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHelp you know that the decision depends on what matters most to you?4.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
TreatmentPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHelp you organize your own thoughts about the decision?4.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
TreatmentPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHelp you think about how involved you want to be in this decision?4.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
TreatmentPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHelp you identify questions you want to ask your doctor?4.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
TreatmentPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScalePrepare you to talk to your doctor about what matters most to you?4.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
TreatmentPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScalePrepare you for a follow-up visit with your doctor?3.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
ControlPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHelp you identify questions you want to ask your doctor?4.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
ControlPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHow much did the edu... Help you recognize that a decision needs to be made about clinical trials?3.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
ControlPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHelp you organize your own thoughts about the decision?3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
ControlPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScalePrepare you to make a better decision about clinical trials?3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
ControlPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScalePrepare you for a follow-up visit with your doctor?3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
ControlPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHelp you think about the pros and cons of treatment options?3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
ControlPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHelp you think about how involved you want to be in this decision?4.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
ControlPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHelp you think about which pros and cons are most important?3.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
ControlPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScalePrepare you to talk to your doctor about what matters most to you?4.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
ControlPreparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) ScaleHelp you know that the decision depends on what matters most to you?4.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
Secondary

Shared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) Scale

Measure of patient perception of shared decision making with provider (12 items). The instrument's statements are rated on a six-point scale from ''completely disagree'' (0) to ''completely agree'' (5). Higher means indicate higher levels of perceived shared decision making.

Time frame: 1 month follow-up

Population: Only participants who were offered a clinical trial were asked these questions.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
TreatmentShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor wanted to know exactly how I want to be involved in making a decision.4.29 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.657
TreatmentShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor asked me which treatment option I prefer.4.16 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.798
TreatmentShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor precisely explained the advantages and disadvantages of clinical trials.4.13 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.755
TreatmentShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor and I thoroughly weighed the different treatment options.4.19 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.857
TreatmentShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor toldme that there are different options for treating my medical condition.4.78 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.237
TreatmentShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor and I selected a treatment option together.4.66 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.619
TreatmentShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor helped me understand all the information for clinical trials.3.90 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.578
TreatmentShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor and I reached an agreement on how to proceed.4.81 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.52
TreatmentShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor made it clear that a decision needs to be made.4.19 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.642
ControlShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor and I reached an agreement on how to proceed.4.60 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.479
ControlShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor made it clear that a decision needs to be made.4.09 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.652
ControlShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor wanted to know exactly how I want to be involved in making a decision.4.23 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.592
ControlShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor toldme that there are different options for treating my medical condition.4.67 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.414
ControlShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor precisely explained the advantages and disadvantages of clinical trials.4.20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.623
ControlShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor helped me understand all the information for clinical trials.4.29 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.526
ControlShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor asked me which treatment option I prefer.4.49 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.541
ControlShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor and I thoroughly weighed the different treatment options.4.69 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.367
ControlShared Decision Making (SDM Q-9) ScaleMy doctor and I selected a treatment option together.4.54 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.54

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026