An interventional study of In-person CP and Tele-CP in Breast Cancer, sponsored by University of California, San Francisco. Completed at 2 sites in United States. Open to female participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2012-10-18.
Sponsored by University of California, San Francisco · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
The investigators community based resource center has implemented visit preparation by prompting patients to write down their questions. This is a proven approach to increasing the number of questions and concerns that patients voice during their visits with doctors. The resource center's usual practice is to provide their visit preparation intervention, called Consultation Planning, through in-person counseling sessions. This study asks whether telephone delivery of Consultation Planning would be almost as effective in terms of increasing patient's decision self-efficacy, or confidence in their ability to navigate decisions effectively with their physicians. The study also asks about the cost-effectiveness of telephone delivery compared to in-person delivery. The investigators are answering these questions through a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial with two arms: in-person versus telephone delivery of Consultation Planning. The investigators are measuring self-reported psychological outcomes such as decision self-efficacy (primary outcome), preparation for decision making, anxiety, and distress, along with economic outcomes such as health resource utilization and willingness to pay. The investigators hypothesize that Tele-CP can be delivered at a lower patient and resource center cost than in-person CP, and that it will be as effective in terms of impact on a patient's decisional self-efficacy.
Breast cancer patients are often advised to write down a list of questions before talking to their surgeons or oncologists about treatment decisions. However, without support, newly diagnosed patients may be too overwhelmed to make a list of their questions. Over the last 30 years, studies have shown that patients benefit from having a researcher or nurse prompt them for questions or any concerns they may have before an upcoming appointment with their primary healthcare provider. In some of these studies, the researcher or nurse then wrote down the patient's questions so that the clinician could be sure to address them.
Today, few facilities provide this type of patient support, known as visit preparation, perhaps because of the cost and/or organizational challenges. Our research team, a partnership between the UCSF Decision Services and the Cancer Resource Centers of Mendocino County (CRCMC) implemented a form of visit preparation known as Consultation Planning (CP). The investigators have made CP work in our communities by training resource center staff to deliver the service in face-to-face interviews with patients.
In a recent completed Pilot Study, the investigators collected and analyzed initial data suggesting that CP is appropriate for diverse, rural patients in Mendocino County (including Native Americans and Latinas), and that CP may be effective when delivered by telephone.
The investigators have now been awarded a grant to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of delivering CP by telephone (Tele-CP) versus in person.
Primary Objectives:
Secondary Objective:
Study Hypotheses:
In 1996, Dr. Belkora and his colleagues evaluated CP at Stanford and UCSF, finding that it reduced perceived barriers to communication and improved satisfaction for patients and physicians. CP has been available at the UCSF Cancer Resource Center since 1999, where it is advertised to all cancer patients through brochures and flyers. CP has also been integrated into the clinical processes at the UCSF Breast Care Center since 1998, where it is now offered to every patient with new or locally recurrent disease who is facing early-stage breast cancer treatment decisions.
In 2003, Dr. Belkora was awarded research funding from the California Breast Cancer Research Program to implement a Pilot Study entitled: Decision Support in Rural Underserved North Coast Counties. This pilot project documented, in a retrospective design, that both onsite and Tele-CP were associated with high satisfaction or decision self-efficacy levels among rural cancer patients who received non-medical supportive services from the CRCMC.
The investigators therefore concluded that CP and Tele-CP are acceptable, feasible, and viable interventions to compare in a prospective randomized, controlled trial in Mendocino County. The investigators were also able to conclude that the Decision Self Efficacy was a suitable primary outcome measure from both the scientific and community viewpoints.
This study is a non-inferiority design which is used in situations where an effective treatment has already been established, in this case in-person CP. The goal is to prove, statistically, that another treatment (Tele-CP) is as effective as the established one, within a predetermined margin of non-inferiority. We will therefore conduct a randomized, controlled trial of non-inferiority between Tele-CP and in-person CP. The outcomes include decisional self-efficacy, anxiety, decisional conflict, disease-related quality of life, adherence to visits and treatments, intervention costs to the patient and resource center as well as physician satisfaction and perception of the decision process.
Approximately 90 Mendocino patients are diagnosed every year with new or locally recurrent breast cancer. An average of 75 breast cancer patients per year become clients of the CRCMC, in that they receive non-medical supportive services from this agency. For example, resource center clients are matched with a "buddy" who is a survivor of a similar condition and is trained to provide emotional support. Clients also use the resource center library and attend support groups. In the past, they have been offered in-person CP.
Once our study begins, all resource center clients diagnosed with stage 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 breast cancer and who are scheduled for a decision making appointment with a surgeon or oncologist will be asked to participate. Based on updated preliminary data (from the resource center's 2007 records), the investigators will require 58 subjects over the study period in order to make the primary analysis of the study scientifically and statistically valid, although we will continuing accruing up to 116 patients in order to conduct secondary, exploratory, subset analyses. Clients who consent to participate in our study will be randomly assigned to Tele-CP or in-person CP. A resource center staff member (Consultation Planner or "CPer") will use the assigned method (CP or Tele-CP) to help the patients prepare a list of questions for their surgeon or oncologist. Before and after the CP or Tele-CP session and their doctor's appointment, clients will be asked to complete short surveys describing their confidence, anxiety, confusion, quality of life, and costs to them of doing the CP session (e.g. travel time). From these surveys, as well as other records, we will determine whether Tele-CP is as effective as in-person CP, and whether it was more convenient and less costly.
Time 0:
Each consent process will be completed pursuant to all UCSF, State and Federal Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects. No study procedures will be initiated until after the consent process is complete and the subject signs the study consent form. A copy of the consent will be given to each subject. A copy of these documents will also be placed in the subject's CRCMC client file.
This trial will take place at the inland and coastal offices of the CRCMC located in Ukiah and Mendocino. Interventions will take place by telephone in one study arm, and at a resource center office site (Ukiah or Mendocino, depending on which is closer to the client domicile) in the other study arm. Patients randomized to the resource center arm, who cannot arrange for transport, will be driven by a resource center staff member.
Time 1:
Time 2:
Time 3:
Time 4:
Six months following the physician consultation, the a research team member will contact the client (and translator if needed) to complete the 6 month surveys. At this time, a copy of the participant's current CRCMC Client Intake form will be added to the study file.
University of California, San Francisco is the lead sponsor of 2,132 studies on the registry; 375 are open to participants now.
Of its 262 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 196 (75%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Participants in this arm have been randomized to receive Consultation Planning in-person
Behavioral: In-person CP
Participants in this arm have been randomized to receive Consultation Planning by telephone.
Behavioral: Tele-CP
CP is a structured interview in which a lay health worker prompts a patient to articulate questions and concerns about decision issues in preparation for a treatment discussion with a provider. The Consultation Planner (CPer) then completes and prints out a word-processed template, paraphrasing and summarizing the patient's questions and concerns. The patient takes away the printed Consultation Plan to serve as a visual aid and agenda during the meeting with the doctor. CPers are trained to avoid providing medical advice or information. Arrangements will be made for participants who do not have transportation to the CRCMC.
Also known as: SCOPED Model, Question listing
Participants in the Tele-CP arm will receive CP by telephone. Arrangements will be made for participants who do not have access to a telephone.
Also known as: SCOPED Model, Question listing
Decisional Self-Efficacy (DSE)
Time frame: -1 hour (1 hour prior to intervention)
Decisional Self-Efficacy (DSE)
Time frame: 5 min after intervention
CRCMC Client Intake Form
Time frame: Immediately upon consent
STAI Form Y-1 (Anxiety)
Time frame: -1 hour (1 hour prior to intervention)
Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS)
Time frame: -1 hour (1 hour prior to intervention)
Critical Incident Survey
Time frame: 5 min (5 minutes after intervention)
Patient Intervention Costs
Time frame: 5 min (5 minutes after intervention)
Patient Utility Assessments
Time frame: 5 min (5 minutes after intervention)
Quality of Life Thermometer
Time frame: Immediately upon consent
Preparation for Decision Making (PDM) Scale
Time frame: 5 min (5 minutes after intervention)
Tracking Log of Medical Visits and Treatments
Time frame: 1 week avg. (immediately following appointment with specialist)
Patient Healthcare Costs
Time frame: Immediately upon consent; 6 months after intervention
STAI Y-1 (Anxiety)
Time frame: 5 minutes after intervention
Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS)
Time frame: 1 week avg. (immediately following visit with physician)
Critical Incident Survey
Time frame: 1 week avg. (immediately following visit with physician)
Patient Intervention Costs
Time frame: 1 week avg. (immediately following visit with physician)
Patient Utility Assessments
Time frame: 6 months after intervention
Quality of Life Thermometer
Time frame: 6 months after intervention
Preparation for Decision Making (PDM) Scale
Time frame: 6 months after intervention
This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2012. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of California, San Francisco