Skip to content

A Decision Support Tool for Pancreatic Cancer Screening -Aim 2

A Decision Support Tool for Pancreatic Cancer Screening -Aim 2

Status
Not yet recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07808671
Enrollment
40
Registered
2026-09-09
Start date
2026-09-08
Completion date
2027-09-08
Last updated
2026-09-09

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

Conditions

Pancreas Cancer

Brief summary

Pancreatic cancer has a rising incidence and poor survival. Early detection in high-risk individuals may substantially improve outcomes. Although guidelines recommend screening for individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes or certain genetic variants, pancreatic cancer screening remains uncertain due to limited evidence of mortality benefit, unclear screening strategies, potential harms, resource requirements, and low adherence. Shared decision-making between patients and providers is therefore essential, but no decision aid currently exists to support pancreatic cancer screening decisions. This record covers Aim 2, which will evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and implementation of an electronic decision support tool designed to improve shared decision-making, value-concordant care, and screening adherence. The pilot study will also provide training in clinical trial methodology and support development toward an independent research career.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALElectronic Decision Support Tool

Participants will use an electronic decision support tool designed to facilitate shared decision-making about pancreatic cancer screening. The pilot study will evaluate the tool's acceptability, feasibility, and implementation in clinical practice.

Sponsors

UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center
Lead SponsorOTHER
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
CollaboratorNIH

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

block randomization with 3:1 allocation will be used at the time of consent.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 99 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Adults who are eligible for pancreatic cancer screening according to current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. * Not currently enrolled in a pancreatic cancer screening program. * Referred to or previously seen at the UNC High Risk GI Cancer Clinic. * English-speaking. * Able and willing to provide informed consent.

Exclusion criteria

* Currently enrolled in a pancreatic cancer screening program. * Does not meet pancreatic cancer screening eligibility criteria according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. * Unable or unwilling to provide informed consent. * Non-English speaking.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Acceptability of the decision support toolUp to 3 monthsParticipant-reported acceptability of the electronic decision support tool, assessed using a validated acceptability measures: acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) and intervention appropriateness measure (IAM). The minimum score for both measures is 4 (all items rated "1 - Completely Disagree") and the maximum score is 20 (all items rated "5 - Completely Agree").
Feasibility, Barriers, and Facilitators of Implementing the Decision Support Tool - Recruitment RateUp to 3 monthsRecruitment rate, defined as the proportion and number of eligible participants who enroll in the study, will be used to assess the feasibility of integrating and implementing the electronic decision support tool in clinical practice.
Feasibility, barriers, and facilitators of implementing the decision support tool - retention rateUp to 3 monthsRetention rate, defined as the number and proportion of enrolled participants who complete use of the electronic decision support tool and all study-related assessments, will be used to assess the feasibility of integrating and implementing the tool in clinical practice.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in score on 5 question knowledge assessmentUp to 3 monthsDifference between participants' post-visit and pre-visit knowledge scores regarding the screening decision. Change in knowledge will be defined as the difference between participants' post-visit and pre-visit knowledge scores on a five-item knowledge assessment, calculated as the post-knowledge score minus the pre-knowledge score. Pre- and post-knowledge scores will be calculated by summing correct answers (equal to 1) and incorrect or incomplete responses (equal to 0). The assessment will be administered immediately before and after the clinic visit.
Rate of Decision-Concordant CareUp to 3 monthsIf the participant undergoes the screening test documented during the clinic visit within 3 months of the visit, this will be considered decision-concordant care. The rate of decision concordant care will be equal to the number of participants who underwent decision-concordant care divided by the total number of participants in the study. Medical record/chart review will be used for measurements
Duration of the clinic visitUp to 3 monthsDuration of the clinic visit will be measured as the duration of the index clinic visit using available clinical or electronic medical record timestamps. This measure will be used to evaluate whether the intervention affects the amount of time required to complete the clinic visit.
Patient-reported assessment of shared decision-making quality -1Up to 3 monthsPatient-reported assessment of the quality of the shared decision-making process, including the extent to which patients received information about available options, understood the benefits and risks of those options, and had their preferences considered in the decision. It will be measured using the collaboRATE questionnaire, administered immediately following the clinic visit and using the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). The SDM-Q-9 measures the extent to which patients perceive that key components of shared decision-making occurred during the clinical encounter. The minimum score for the SDM-Q-9 is 0 (all items rated "0 - Completely Disagree") and the maximum score is 45 (all items rated "5 - Completely Agree"). Higher scores indicate a patient perception of better shared decision making. It will be administered immediately following the clinic visit.
Patient-reported assessment of shared decision-making quality -2Up to 3 monthsPatient-reported perception of the extent to which shared decision-making occurred during the clinic visit will be additionally be assessed using the 3 question collaboRATE questionnaire. The collaboRATE questionnaire measures the extent to which patients received information about available options, understood the benefits and risks of those options, and had their preferences considered. The minimum score for collaborate is 0 (all items rated "0 - No Effort") and the maximum score is 12 (all items rated "4 - Every Effort"). T the collaboRATE questionnaire will be administered immediately following the clinic visit.
Patient-reported assessment of decisional conflictUp to 3 monthsPatient-reported uncertainty or conflict regarding the screening decision, including factors such as informed choice, will be assessed using the 16 question decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The minimum score for the DCS is 0 (no decisional conflict) and the maximum score is 100 (extremely high decisional conflict). The DCS will be administered immediately following the clinic visit.

Countries

United States

Contacts

CONTACTTrevor Barlowe, MD
trevor_barlowe@med.unc.edu919-984-0000
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORTrevor Barlowe, MD

UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Sep 10, 2026