Hospice Care
Conditions
Brief summary
The investigator will conduct a two-site, randomized, controlled study of the HoPE (Hospice Preparation and Education) web-based tool versus usual care to assess: Technology usability (primary), study feasibility (secondary), user acceptability (secondary), and hospice service conversion rate (exploratory). Technology usability will be assessed through a one-time quantitative survey using established instruments. Study feasibility and user accessibility will be assessed through trial enrollment and retention alongside analytics assessing tool usage (e.g. time spent on each page of the website). Conversion rate is the percent of patients introduced to hospice who eventually enroll. The investigators will evaluate in an exploratory manner the differential effect of HoPE versus usual care.
Interventions
OTHERHoPE Website
Educational website focused on hospice care
Sponsors
Duke University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
21 Years to 89 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Eligible for and referral made for home hospice services (Note: this excludes home palliative care, home infusion, home nursing, home physical therapy, and bridge services) * Aged between 21 and 89 * Capacity to give consent * Ability to speak and understand English
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Technology usability as measured by System Usability Scale | At study completion, up to 4 months. | To determine usability, the System Usability Scale will be administered to each participant in the intervention arm. As described by usability.gov: The participant's scores for each question are converted to a new number, added together and then multiplied by 2.5 to convert the original scores of 0-40 to 0-100. Though the scores are 0-100, these are not percentages and should be considered only in terms of their percentile ranking. Based on research, a SUS score above a 68 would be considered above average and anything below 68 is below average, however the best way to interpret your results involves normalizing the scores to produce a percentile ranking. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Study Feasibility as measured by enrollment efficiency | At study completion, up to 4 months | Enrollment efficiency will be measured by the percentage of patients approached who enroll in the study, with the goal of \>50% enrollment. |
| Study Feasibility as measured by intervention completion | At study completion, up to 4 months | Intervention completion will be measured by the percentage of participants on the intervention arm who complete at least 50% of the modules within the intervention website, with a goal of \>50% of the participants. |
| User Accessibility as measured by Net Promoter score | At study completion, up to 4 months | The Net Promoter scale is administered to participants in the intervention arm of the study only. This scale is an eleven-item likert scale assessing likelihood to recommend the intervention to a family member or friend. The percentage of participants who give a score of 0 through 6 is subtracted by the percentage of participants who give a score of 9 or 10 to give the overall Net Promoter score. This score is then compared to other scores of similar technologies. |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed