Skip to content

Evaluating Tools to Communicate Scleroderma Research Results to Patients - Trial #1

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare the Effectiveness of Dissemination Tools to Share Research Results With Patients - SPIN-CLEAR Trial #1

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06373263
Acronym
SPIN-CLEAR #1
Enrollment
511
Registered
2024-04-18
Start date
2025-12-05
Completion date
2026-01-02
Last updated
2026-09-10

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

Conditions

Scleroderma, Systemic Sclerosis

Keywords

Scleroderma, Knowledge Translation, Dissemination Tools, E-Health, Intervention, Systemic Sclerosis

Brief summary

Sharing research results with patients is required by ethical regulations. Yet, most researchers do not share results from their studies with patients. The investigators plan to conduct a series of randomized controlled trials among people with scleroderma, a rare autoimmune disease, in a large international cohort, to identify the most effective methods for communicating study results with patients. The first trial in the series will compare a research dissemination tool (infographic) against a plain-language summary comparator. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive the dissemination tool or comparator. Study participants will rate communication tools for (1) information completeness; (2) understandability; and (3) ease of use of format. Our results can be used by researchers and patient organizations who disseminate research results so that they can tailor the way they disseminate results to patient needs.

Detailed description

Background: Research ethics guidance mandates that study results be shared with participants, and CIHR's Knowledge Translation Strategy emphasizes dissemination to others with relevant lived experiences. Yet, most researchers do not share results with patients, and do not know which dissemination tools (e.g., lay summaries, infographics, podcasts) or tool features best facilitate effective communication. Only 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared tool effectiveness, and none assessed which approaches work best for which patients. Comparative effectiveness trials are needed to build an evidence base to help us understand what tools are most effective for communicating different types of research to different patients. The investigators will use the multinational Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort to conduct a series of RCTs to compare tools among people with systemic sclerosis, or scleroderma. The first trial in the series will compare a research dissemination tool (infographic) against a plain-language summary comparator. Objectives: An effective tool must communicate information patients want to know, understandably, in an easy-to-use format. The trial will compare the effectiveness of an infographic and lay summary, overall and for patients with different sociodemographic or educational characteristics. Primary Objectives: The first trial will compare tools based on (1) information completeness; (2) understandability; and (3) ease of use, as prioritized by our Patient Advisory Team. Secondary Objectives: The investigators will evaluate comprehension of key aspects of disseminated research; likelihood that participants would enroll in a similar future study; and, for all primary and secondary outcomes, analyze effects by participant characteristics (e.g., age, country, language, education level, eHealth literacy). Methods: Parallel-group RCT that will compare 2 tools (infographic and plain-language summary comparator. For this trial, SPIN patients and researchers will select systemic sclerosis research to disseminate. Tools will be developed by experienced tool developers, patients, and researchers. SPIN Cohort participants (N = 1,250 and growing) will be invited to enrol, and those enrolled will be randomized to a dissemination tool and complete outcomes. Response options will be 0 to 10 numerical rating scales (0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree). The primary analysis will be intention-to-treat, using a linear mixed effects model with multiple observations per participant (using the lmer function from the lme4 package in R).

Interventions

OTHERPlain-language summary

Participants will receive information about a research study via a plain-language summary. The comparator will be a plain-language summary, since plain-language summaries are commonly used and more easily developed than other tools. The summary will be designed based on Canadian government and other key recommendations, including from the Cochrane Collaboration. It will include Background and Objectives, Methods, Results, Limitations, and Key Message for Patients sections and include information on how evidence informs knowledge or health care options. Abstract will be \< 500 words long and use short, positive, active-voice sentence structures and everyday words. Reading level will be between 8th and 9th grade based on Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and readability score between 60 and 70 based on Flesch Reading Ease.

OTHERDissemination Tool (Infographic)

The infographic will be developed based on key principles including clearly defining the audience and purpose; sharing a story, rather than just facts, with brief, clear messaging; highlighting main ideas; using an attractive title and images; and following principles of good graphic design.

Sponsors

Lady Davis Institute
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Parallel Assignment

Eligibility

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

Inclusion criteria

1. Enrollment in SPIN Cohort, which requires a systemic sclerosis (SSc) classification by a site physician based on 2013 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria, ≥18 years old, being fluent in English or French, and have completed one SPIN Cohort assessment in the last year. 2. External enrollment with patient-reported physician classification of SSc and age 18 or older.

Exclusion criteria

Patients not able to access or respond to questionnaires via the internet are excluded.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
CompletenessImmediately Post-intervention (intervention and outcomes in one login - outcomes approx 30 min after randomization)"The information presented in the \[tool - e.g., "infographic", "plain-language summary"\] told me everything I wanted to know about the study". Response options = 0-10 numerical rating scales (0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree)
UnderstandabilityImmediately Post-intervention (intervention and outcomes in one login - outcomes approx 30 min after randomization)"The information presented in the \[tool\] was easy to understand". Response options = 0-10 numerical rating scales (0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree)
Ease of useImmediately Post-intervention (intervention and outcomes in one login - outcomes approx 30 min after randomization)"The \[tool\] was designed in a way that made it easy to use". Response options = 0-10 numerical rating scales (0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Please to have received resultsImmediately Post-intervention (intervention and outcomes in one login - outcomes approx 30 min after randomization)"I am glad that I received the study results"); Response options = 0-10 numerical rating scales (0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree)
Intention to participate in future studiesImmediately Post-intervention (intervention and outcomes in one login - outcomes approx 30 min after randomization)"In the future, I would agree to participate in a similar study to the one presented in the \[tool\]". Response options = 0-10 numerical rating scales (0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree)
Open-ended itemsImmediately Post-intervention (intervention and outcomes in one login - outcomes approx 30 min after randomization)"What did you like about the way the information was communicated?"; "What did you dislike about the way the information was communicated?"; "Do you have suggestions for improving how the information is communicated?"

Countries

Canada

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Sep 11, 2026