An interventional study of Story checklist in Musculoskeletal Diseases, sponsored by University of Texas at Austin. Withdrawn at 5 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 89 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-07-31.
Sponsored by University of Texas at Austin · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
This study is seeking whether giving or not giving a clinician a card with talking points in the form of a checklist about the patient's story affects the patients care experience or not
During an office visit, the clinician and the patient engage in dialogue and begin a relationship. This traditionally starts with the patient telling their story, which conveys why they decided to seek care. This study will determine the influence of a checklist specifically about the patient's narrative. The checklist will be used during the interview portion of the visit, to remind the clinician to stay curious about the person before them, their experience of the illness, and their explanatory model, and to help ensure that empathic opportunities are not missed.
657 studies on the registry are indexed under Musculoskeletal Diseases; 159 are open to participants now.
Browse Musculoskeletal Diseases studies →University of Texas at Austin is the lead sponsor of 319 studies on the registry; 78 are open to participants now.
Of its 10 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 5 (50%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Clinician not given any cards about the patient's story.
Clinician given a card with talking points in the form of a checklist about the patient's story.
Other: Story checklist
The story checklist consists of a couple of questions that gives the physician something to keep in mind while visiting the patients.
Patient Experience Measure questions
Questionnaire assessing patient's experience
Time frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months
Perceived empathy (JSPPPE)
Patient perceived of physician empathy as measured by the JSPPPE;The scores range from 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 7 ("Strongly Agree"), with the total score being between 5 and 35. Higher scores represent greater empathic perception about the physician.
Time frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months
Guttman
Patient Satisfaction as measured by the Guttman Scale, The total score is between 0 and 7, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.
Time frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months
Guttman CEQ
Communication Effectiveness Questionnaire; The total score is the sum of all item scores (9 to 63) with higher scores representing a greater degree of perceived communication effectiveness.
Time frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months
PROMIS PF CAT
Patient Physical Function is measure by the PROMIS PF CAT; Higher scores indicate better physical function, with a mean of 50 for the general US population
Time frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months
NRS pain intensity assessment
Numeric rating scale = 11 point ordinal scale, the higher score indicates the more pain intensity
Time frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months
Plan to share: Undecided
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is withdrawn, as verified in Jul 2025. 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 Texas at Austin