An interventional study of Order of pictographs provided to participants and Level of description in survival pictograph in Premature Birth, sponsored by Medical College of Wisconsin. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 50 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-02-17.
Sponsored by Medical College of Wisconsin · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
Women recruited from the internet were put in a hypothetical situation of being in labor at 22 weeks of pregnancy, and presented with information in the form of pictographs about survival and disability of babies born at this gestational age.
Participants were randomized to receive these pictographs in a different order (survival or disability first) and to receive descriptiveness level of survival (just numerical information, or also description of course of NICU stay).
Participants were then asked to choose between comfort care and intensive care in this situation. Participants' religiosity, value of the sanctity of life, and health literacy were also assessed.
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Workshop on Periviable Birth recommended that information on the chance of survival and risk of disability should be provided separately. The order in which information is presented can affect memory, persuasiveness, and treatment choice, but the effect of order of information presentation in the context of neonatal resuscitation has received little attention. Additionally, the effect of including a description of the long and intense time in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) on parental treatment decision making is also unexplored. Current evidence suggests that pictographs best convey numerical information to parents.
Three pictographs were developed based on NICHD data for 22 weeks gestational age (GA) babies who received intensive care. One pictograph displayed information on the rates of disability in the babies who survive. Two pictographs displayed information about how many babies born at 22 weeks survive, with one of these pictographs including a description of the average course of NICU stay.
An internet survey was sent to a U.S. representative sample of women of child-bearing age. A vignette including background on prematurity and the treatment options of intensive care or comfort care for a baby born at 22 weeks GA was presented. Participants viewed the pictographs, evenly randomized to one of four experimental conditions (order of information presentation x level of description of NICU course). Participants were then asked to choose intensive care or comfort care. Participant religiosity, values (quality vs. sanctity of life), autonomy preferences in medical decision making, previous NICU exposure, numeracy, and health literacy were also assessed.
2,554 studies on the registry are indexed under Premature Birth; 498 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 839 is above the median of 84 across 1,689 interventional studies indexed under Premature Birth.
Browse Premature Birth studies →Medical College of Wisconsin is the lead sponsor of 540 studies on the registry; 120 are open to participants now.
Of its 71 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 56 (79%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Participants in this arm were presented with a pictograph displaying numerical survival information, followed by a pictograph displaying disability information.
Behavioral: Order of pictographs provided to participants · Behavioral: Level of description in survival pictograph
Participants in this arm were presented with a pictograph displaying survival information including the average course of stay in the NICU, followed by a pictograph displaying disability information.
Behavioral: Order of pictographs provided to participants · Behavioral: Level of description in survival pictograph
Participants in this arm were presented with a pictograph displaying disability information, followed by a pictograph displaying numerical survival.
Behavioral: Order of pictographs provided to participants · Behavioral: Level of description in survival pictograph
Participants in this arm were presented with a pictograph displaying disability information, followed by a pictograph displaying survival information including the average course of stay in the NICU.
Behavioral: Order of pictographs provided to participants · Behavioral: Level of description in survival pictograph
The pictographs presented to participants about survival and disability were varied in the order in which they were presented (i.e. survival or disability information first).
The pictographs presented to participants about survival and disability were varied in the level of description provided in the survival pictograph (i.e. only numerical data, or also a description of course of NICU stay).
Hypothetical treatment choice
Participant's hypothetical treatment choice of either comfort care or intensive care. Participants were told: "Your doctor asks you what treatment option you want to choose," and given the options of "I would want the doctors to provide the baby intensive care / comfort care." This dichotomous variable is assessed for the frequency of each option chosen.
Time frame: Assessed immediately post-intervention.
Religiosity
Participants' religiosity was assessed using the Duke University Religion Index (5-item). Potential scores range from 5-27, with 27 being the most religious.
Time frame: Assessed post-intervention, immediately after treatment choice.
Preference for medical autonomy
Participants were asked on a 4-point scale their medical autonomy preferences, in the form of: "In making medical decisions: 1) I always prefer to have the doctor make decisions for me, 2) I would prefer to have the doctor make medical decisions for me most of the time, 3) I would prefer to make my own medical decisions most of the time, or 4) I always prefer to make my own decisions." Score ranging from 1-4, with 4 being the maximum preference for medical autonomy.
Time frame: Assessed post-intervention, immediately after treatment choice.
Values: quality or sanctity of life
Participants answered the following: "In making end-of-life decisions: 1) Quality of life is much more important than preserving life, 2) Quality of life is somewhat more important than preserving life, 3) Preserving life is somewhat more important than quality of life, or 4) Preserving life is much more important than quality of life." In the range of 1-4, a score of 4 indicated the greatest participant value of sanctity of life.
Time frame: Assessed post-intervention, immediately after treatment choice.
Numeracy
Participants' numeracy levels were assessed by using an adapted item from the Subjective Numeracy Scale: "How good are you at figuring out how much a $20 shirt will cost if it is 25% off? Extremely / Quite a bit / Somewhat / A little bit / Not at all." Participants who answered somewhat, a little bit, or not at all were considered to have low numeracy.
Time frame: Assessed post-intervention, immediately after treatment choice.
Health literacy
Participants' health literacy was assessed using the single-item Brief Health Literacy screening, which asks, "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself? Extremely / Quite a bit / Somewhat / A little bit / Not at all." Participants who answered somewhat, a little bit, or not at all were considered to have low health literacy.
Time frame: Assessed post-intervention, immediately after treatment choice.
Previous NICU exposure
Participants were also asked if they have previously had a child in the NICU, with yes/no answer options.
Time frame: Assessed post-intervention, immediately after treatment choice.
This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2020. 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.
Medical College of Wisconsin