Cancer, Communication
Conditions
Keywords
Prognostic Communication, Cancer, Poor Prognosis, Participants 12-25 years of age, Caregivers, Pediatric oncologists, Communication Preferences Companions
Brief summary
The purpose of this research study is to obtain insights and feedback from patients and parents about a new approach to support conversations about how cancer may affect one's future life and quality of life (i.e., prognostic communication). This study involves creating a personalized approach to discussing prognosis. Primary Objectives * To evaluate the feasibility of implementing the RIGHTimeCPV intervention among pediatric oncology patients, caregivers, and clinicians (referred to herein as "shareholders"). * To assess the acceptability of the intervention across the shareholder groups. Secondary Objectives * To explore the potential impact of the RIGHTimeCPV intervention on communication quality, concordance in prognostic understanding, and therapeutic alliance between patients/families and multidisciplinary clinicians. * To explore whether the practice of eliciting, sharing, and honoring individualized communication preferences is sustained by clinicians after participation in the RIGHTimeCPV intervention.
Detailed description
An estimated range of 52-85 total participants across all subject cohorts at St. Jude and participating affiliate sites, including 12-15 pediatric oncologists, 2-3 family units per participating oncologist (with an emphasis on dyadic recruitment within a given family unit, but also may include independent patients, independent caregivers, or a patient and multiple caregivers; estimated 15-25 patients and 15-25 parents), and 10-20 'communication preferences companions' (CPCs). The RIGHTimeCPV intervention centers eliciting, sharing, and integrating individualized patient/parent preferences for prognostic communication into routine clinical practice through collaboration between multidisciplinary clinicians on the care team. The intervention comprises five parts: 1) patient/parent identifies and selects a CPC; 2) CPC reviews intervention materials and conversation guide with the research team; 3) CPC and patient/parent meet for a CPV visit, and CPC documents patient/parent preferences in a templated form; 4) CPC and oncologist discuss the CPV form; 5) oncologist, patient/parent, and CPC attend next disease re-evaluation visit together. Data will be collected at the following timepoints: 1) study enrollment (routine demographic information collected from each participant); 2) CPV 'conversation guide' training with CPC and research staff (audio-recorded encounter); 3) CPV with patient/parent and CPC (audio-recorded encounter); 4) during the period after a CPV and before the next disease re-evaluation encounter (brief survey and semi-structured interview for patients/parents and oncologists); 5) CPC-oncologist discussion to review the CPV form (email or audio-recorded encounter); 6) disease re-evaluation visit with patient/parent, oncologist, and CPC (audio-recorded encounter); 7) post-intervention interview (brief surveys for patients/parents and oncologists and semi-structured interviews for all participants); and 8) post-intervention interview six months after the final DRV (semi-structured interviews for all participants).
Interventions
BEHAVIORALPrognostic Communication-Patient/parent
* Patient/parent identifies and selects a communication preferences companion (CPC) * CPC and patient/parent meet for a Communication Preferences Visit (CPV) * Oncologist, patient/parent, and CPC attend next disease re-evaluation visit together.
BEHAVIORALPrognostic Communication-CPC
* CPC reviews intervention materials and conversation guide with the research team * CPC and patient/parent meet for a CPV, and CPC documents patient/parent preferences in a templated form * CPC and oncologist discuss the CPV form * Oncologist, patient/parent, and CPC attend next disease re-evaluation visit together.
BEHAVIORALPrognostic Communication-Oncologist
* CPC and oncologist discuss the CPV form * Oncologist, patient/parent, and CPC attend next disease re-evaluation visit together
Sponsors
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Study design
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
12 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Patients * Aged 12-25 years diagnosed with poor prognosis cancer (high risk or otherwise difficult to treat cancers), as defined by a pediatric oncologist estimating odds of overall survival as 50% or less * Anticipated by a pediatric oncologist to have one or more disease re-evaluation timepoints over the next six months * Not anticipated by a pediatric oncologist to approach end of life in the next three months Inclusion Criteria: Parents/Caregivers * Aged 18 years or older and/or legally emancipated * Parent or other self-identified caregiver of a patient of any age with poor prognosis cancer (as defined above) Inclusion Criteria: Oncologists * Pediatric oncologists who treat eligible patients/caregivers at the study site, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (SJCRH) or its included affiliates: * Peoria, IL: The Jim and Trudy Maloof St. Jude Midwest Affiliate Clinic * Charlotte, NC: Novant Health Hemby Children's Hospital * Shreveport, LA: Ochsner LSU Health-Feist-Weiller Cancer Center Inclusion Criteria: Communication Preferences Companions (CPCs) * Multidisciplinary clinicians from a participant's psychosocial or nursing care team, identified by that participant to serve as their 'communication preferences companion' (CPC) during the pilot * Provides clinical care to pediatric cancer patients under the auspices of psychology, social work, spiritual care, child life, cultural navigation, quality of life/palliative care, or nursing
Exclusion criteria
* Does not meet the stated inclusion criteria
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Feasibility of implementing the RIGHTimeCPV intervention | Between Day 1-30 after a Disease Reevaluation Visit (DRV) [participant specific] and again 6 months after the final DRV during study exit interviews [participant specific | Quantitative findings of feasibility will be assessed using the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM). The FIM measure includes four itemized responses that are scored from one to five, such that one represents the lowest possible mean score and five the highest possible mean score. Feasibility is standardly considered to be achieved with a mean score ≥3 for this measure. Higher scores indicate greater perceived feasibility of the intervention. |
| Acceptability of implementing the RIGHTimeCPV intervention | Between Day 1-30 after a Disease Reevaluation Visit (DRV) [participant specific] and again 6 months after the final DRV during study exit interviews [participant specific | Quantitative findings of acceptability will be assessed using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM). The AIM measure includes four itemized responses that are scored from one to five, such that one represents the lowest possible mean score and five the highest possible mean score. Acceptability is standardly considered to be achieved with a mean score ≥3 for this measure. Higher scores indicate greater perceived acceptability. |
| Percentage of participants who engage in at least one cycle of intervention | 6 months after the final DRV during study exit interviews [participant specific | The percentages of participating patients, parents, and multidisciplinary clinicians who engage in at least one cycle of the intervention. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Potential impact of the RIGHTimeCPV intervention on communication quality, concordance in prognostic understanding, and therapeutic alliance between patients/families and multidisciplinary clinicians | Between Day 1-30 after the CPV timepoint [participant specific], between Day 1-30 after the DRV timepoint [participant specific], and 6 months after the final DRV during study exit interviews [participant specific | This outcome will be assessed through generation of qualitative thematic findings. Specifically, qualitative data gathered from audio-recorded encounters at the Communication Preferences Visit (CPV) and DRV timepoints, as well as post-intervention interviews, will undergo rapid qualitative analysis and reflexive thematic analysis to explore participating patient, caregiver, and clinician impressions of the intervention's impact on communication quality, prognostic understanding, and therapeutic alliance between patients/caregivers and multidisciplinary clinicians. |
| Whether the practice of eliciting, sharing, and honoring individualized communication preferences is sustained by clinicians after participation in the RIGHTimeCPV intervention | 6 months after the final DRV during study exit interviews [participant specific | Through analysis of the final post-intervention interview, the investigators will generate thematic findings related to participant perspectives on the intervention's impact on individual attitudes and behaviors and whether the practice of eliciting, sharing, and honoring individualized communication preferences was sustained by clinicians after participation in the RIGHTimeCPV intervention. |
Countries
United States
Contacts
CONTACTErica C. Kaye, MD, MPH
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORErica C. Kaye, MD, MPH
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
Outcome results
None listed