CClinicalTrials.gg
Sign In
CompletedNCT05511935GRINUpdated Nov 7, 2024Results posted

Testing Preliminary Effectiveness of a Training to Support CHWs Outreach on Dental to African American Caregivers

An interventional study of professional development training for CHWs on dental health (GRIN) in Oral Health, Child and Adolescents, sponsored by KDH Research & Communication. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 100 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-11-07.

Sponsored by KDH Research & Communication · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 7 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Jan 2022, registered Aug 2022).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
143
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 100 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Two arm study, experimental and control, to explore the impact of an online training program to help community health workers conduct effective outreach to support the dental health of African American youth via their caregivers.

Read the detailed description

The investigators will use a randomized, two-group, pretest/posttest design to test the efficacy of the GRIN prototype and explore the following research question: To what extent does exposure to the GRIN prototype relate to positive changes in CHWs' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, perceived self-efficacy, and intent to conduct oral health care outreach to low-income Black guardians? The community-driven nature of the project will ground the evaluation in the principles of an equitable evaluation that incorporates a racial equity lens. An equitable evaluation is "an approach that addresses the dynamics and practices that have historically undervalued the voices, knowledge, expertise, capacity, and experiences of all evaluation participants and stakeholders, particularly people of color and other marginalized groups." This approach "requires that evaluators engage in a process of ongoing self-reflection and adjustment, including a willingness to question and adapt traditional evaluation methods in response to stakeholder input." Working with communities to reflect the specific needs of their constituents, investigators will develop and enhance collaborations that leverage stakeholder expertise; minimize counter-productive duplications of services and resource expenditure; and create empowered opportunities for CHWs to conduct outreach with low-income Black guardians. The PI, with input from the SC, will develop necessary research materials, including the recruitment protocols, evaluation instrumentation, and human subjects consent materials, which then be reviewed against an equitable evaluation checklist, obtaining input on revisions from community members where needed. The PI will also outline the appropriate statistical analysis methods. All procedure documents will be reviewed by the KDHRC Institutional Review Board before the evaluation launch.

The investigators will recruit participants through evaluation partners who will disseminate the study information to CHWs via electronic notifications and flyers. Evaluation partners include National Association of Community Health Workers (NACHW) and the University of Southern Mississippi College of Nursing and Health Professionals (see Letters of Support for more details). The notification will provide information about the goal of the study, participant eligibility, and a link to an interest and eligibility form. Once a potential participant completes the interest and eligibility form and s/he is eligible for the project, they will receive a link to a consent form located on a secure online platform.

CHWs will be randomly assigned to the intervention or control group after consent and enrollment in the study. All participants will complete an online pretest survey. The intervention group will be exposed to GRIN and will complete an online posttest survey two weeks after completing the GRIN modules. The control group participants will not be exposed to the GRIN program and will complete a posttest two weeks after completing the pretest. Participant responses to pretest and posttest survey measures will be linked using non-personal identifiers.

The investigators will download and export the data from SurveyGizmo into an encrypted Excel file and import the raw data into STATA. The investigators will match the pretest and posttest responses using the random assigned identifiers and conduct analyses to test for the effect of GRIN exposure on changes in CHWs' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, self-efficacy, and intentions to conduct pediatric oral health care outreach to low-income Black guardians. The a priori feasibility criterion is: Statistically significant differences between pretest and posttest knowledge and self-efficacy measures among the intervention group participants.

02

Conditions studied

  • Oral Health
  • Child
  • Adolescents
  • Self Efficacy
  • Intention
  • Health Literacy
  • African Americans
  • Poverty
  • Community Health Workers
  • Attitude
  • Knowledge
03

In context

Lead sponsor

KDH Research & Communication is the lead sponsor of 7 studies on the registry; 1 is open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 100 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Must be at least 18 years old.
  • Must self-identify as a community health worker.
  • Must conduct outreach to Black parents of children and adolescents.
  • Must have six months of field experience. KDHRC defines "field experience" as conducting outreach activities in their community, for example, working with clients in a clinic, conducting home visits, or educating clients at health fairs or community events
  • Must be an active CHW. KDHRC defines "active" as conducting outreach activities, such as working with clients in a clinic, conducting home visits, or educating clients at health fairs or community events, in the last six months.
  • Must have Internet access either at home or at work to access the the GRIN virtual education session and/or online surveys.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria:

-None

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
143 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    exposed to GRIN training

    participates in the intervention

    Other: professional development training for CHWs on dental health (GRIN)

  • No intervention
    control/unexposed

    no intervention

Interventions

  • Otherprofessional development training for CHWs on dental health (GRIN)

    multi module online training

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Knowledge Pretest Score

    We asked participants 12 multiple choice knowledge questions related to oral health which we averaged to create a composite knowledge score for each participant ranging from 0 to 100. A score of 0 meant a participant got zero questions correct while a score of 100 meant a participant got all questions correct. We averaged these composite scores across all participants for both groups to create mean scores ranging from 0 to 100, the higher the score the more questions participants answered correctly.

    Time frame: Baseline

  2. Attitudes Pretest Score

    We asked all participants seven Likert-type scale questions about attitudes towards conducting oral health outreach. Each answer choice rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of oral health outreach importance. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest score and 10 being the highest. Higher score means better outcome. Then, we averaged these composite scores for each group.

    Time frame: Baseline

  3. Self-efficacy Pretest Score

    We asked all participants 10 Likert-type scale questions related to perceived self-efficacy with conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of confidence in providing oral health outreach. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for both groups.

    Time frame: Baseline

  4. Intentions Pretest Score

    We asked all participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their intentions to conduct oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceived likelihood of providing oral health outreach in the future. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group.

    Time frame: Baseline

  5. Knowledge Posttest Score

    We asked participants 12 multiple choice knowledge questions related to oral health which we averaged to create a composite knowledge score for each participant ranging from 0 to 100. A score of 0 meant a participant got zero questions correct while a score of 100 meant a participant got all questions correct. We averaged these composite scores across all participants for both groups to create mean scores ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores mean better outcome.

    Time frame: Posttest (2 weeks after baseline)

  6. Attitudes Posttest Score

    We asked all participants seven Likert-type scale questions about attitudes towards conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of oral health outreach importance. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group.

    Time frame: Posttest (2 weeks after baseline)

  7. Self-efficacy Posttest Score

    We asked all participants 10 Likert-type scale questions related to perceived self-efficacy with conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of confidence in providing oral health outreach. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group.

    Time frame: Posttest (2 weeks after baseline)

  8. Intentions Posttest Score

    We asked all participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their intentions to conduct oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceived likelihood of providing oral health outreach in the future. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group.

    Time frame: Posttest (2 weeks after baseline)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Satisfaction at Posttest Score

    We asked only the intervention group participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their satisfaction with the GRIN intervention. Each rating ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores representing higher satisfaction with the GRIN intervention. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each intervention participant, then averaged these scores across the intervention group. Scores ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores meaning better satisfaction/outcome.

    Time frame: Baseline (2 weeks after baseline)

07

Results

Posted Nov 7, 2024

Participant flow

Recruited participants from AHECS in MD, PA, TX, and the National Association of Community Health Workers.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Started7172
Completed6245
Not completed927
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up927

Outcome measures

PrimaryKnowledge Pretest Score

We asked participants 12 multiple choice knowledge questions related to oral health which we averaged to create a composite knowledge score for each participant ranging from 0 to 100. A score of 0 meant a participant got zero questions correct while a score of 100 meant a participant got all questions correct. We averaged these composite scores across all participants for both groups to create mean scores ranging from 0 to 100, the higher the score the more questions participants answered correctly.

Time frame:
Baseline
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Knowledge Pretest Score
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Knowledge Pretest Score64.92 ± 20.0366.67 ± 17.04
Statistical analysis
  • Exposed to GRIN Training vs Control/Unexposed · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.64 · Mean difference (final values): 1.75 · 95% CI -5.57 to 9.06
PrimaryAttitudes Pretest Score

We asked all participants seven Likert-type scale questions about attitudes towards conducting oral health outreach. Each answer choice rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of oral health outreach importance. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest score and 10 being the highest. Higher score means better outcome. Then, we averaged these composite scores for each group.

Time frame:
Baseline
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Attitudes Pretest Score
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Attitudes Pretest Score8.46 ± 0.888.60 ± 0.85
Statistical analysis
  • Exposed to GRIN Training vs Control/Unexposed · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.47 · Mean difference (final values): 1.30 · 95% CI -2.28 to 4.89
PrimarySelf-efficacy Pretest Score

We asked all participants 10 Likert-type scale questions related to perceived self-efficacy with conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of confidence in providing oral health outreach. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for both groups.

Time frame:
Baseline
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Self-efficacy Pretest Score
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Self-efficacy Pretest Score8.16 ± 1.907.93 ± 2.22
Statistical analysis
  • Exposed to GRIN Training vs Control/Unexposed · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.59 · Mean difference (final values): -2.33 · 95% CI -10.77 to 6.11
PrimaryIntentions Pretest Score

We asked all participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their intentions to conduct oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceived likelihood of providing oral health outreach in the future. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group.

Time frame:
Baseline
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Intentions Pretest Score
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Intentions Pretest Score7.39 ± 2.327.23 ± 2.89
Statistical analysis
  • Exposed to GRIN Training vs Control/Unexposed · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.77 · Mean difference (final values): -1.61 · 95% CI -12.61 to 9.38
PrimaryKnowledge Posttest Score

We asked participants 12 multiple choice knowledge questions related to oral health which we averaged to create a composite knowledge score for each participant ranging from 0 to 100. A score of 0 meant a participant got zero questions correct while a score of 100 meant a participant got all questions correct. We averaged these composite scores across all participants for both groups to create mean scores ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores mean better outcome.

Time frame:
Posttest (2 weeks after baseline)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Knowledge Posttest Score
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Knowledge Posttest Score79.44 ± 13.9767.22 ± 15.83
Statistical analysis
  • Exposed to GRIN Training vs Control/Unexposed · t-test, 2 sided · p = <0.001 · Mean difference (final values): -12.21 · 95% CI -17.95 to -6.47
PrimaryAttitudes Posttest Score

We asked all participants seven Likert-type scale questions about attitudes towards conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of oral health outreach importance. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group.

Time frame:
Posttest (2 weeks after baseline)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Attitudes Posttest Score
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Attitudes Posttest Score8.45 ± 0.998.62 ± 0.67
Statistical analysis
  • Exposed to GRIN Training vs Control/Unexposed · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.39 · Mean difference (final values): 1.62 · 95% CI -2.10 to 5.34
PrimarySelf-efficacy Posttest Score

We asked all participants 10 Likert-type scale questions related to perceived self-efficacy with conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of confidence in providing oral health outreach. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group.

Time frame:
Posttest (2 weeks after baseline)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Self-efficacy Posttest Score
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Self-efficacy Posttest Score9.36 ± 1.088.48 ± 1.75
Statistical analysis
  • Exposed to GRIN Training vs Control/Unexposed · t-test, 2 sided · p = <0.01 · Mean difference (final values): -8.88 · 95% CI -14.52 to -3.24
PrimaryIntentions Posttest Score

We asked all participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their intentions to conduct oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceived likelihood of providing oral health outreach in the future. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group.

Time frame:
Posttest (2 weeks after baseline)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Intentions Posttest Score
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Intentions Posttest Score8.38 ± 1.778.10 ± 2.20
Statistical analysis
  • Exposed to GRIN Training vs Control/Unexposed · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.49 · Mean difference (final values): -2.84 · 95% CI -10.90 to 5.23
SecondarySatisfaction at Posttest Score

We asked only the intervention group participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their satisfaction with the GRIN intervention. Each rating ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores representing higher satisfaction with the GRIN intervention. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each intervention participant, then averaged these scores across the intervention group. Scores ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores meaning better satisfaction/outcome.

Time frame:
Baseline (2 weeks after baseline)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Satisfaction at Posttest Score
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN Training
Satisfaction at Posttest Score4.49 ± 0.46
Post-hocChange in Knowledge Scores From Pretest to Posttest

At both pretest and posttest, we asked all participants the same 12 multiple choice knowledge questions related to oral health, which we averaged to create a composite knowledge score for each participant ranging from 0 to 100. A score of 0 meant a participant got zero questions correct while a score of 100 meant a participant got all questions correct. We averaged these composite scores across all participants for both groups to create mean scores. We then subtracted pretest scores from posttest scores and averaged these changes for all participants as the dependent variable in multiple regression. Higher scores mean higher gains from baseline to posttest. We used group assignment (intervention or treatment) as the main independent variable while controlling for participant baseline characteristics and demographics.

Time frame:
From baseline to posttest (2 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Change in Knowledge Scores From Pretest to Posttest
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Change in Knowledge Scores From Pretest to Posttest14.52 ± 17.980.56 ± 13.22
Statistical analysis
  • Exposed to GRIN Training vs Control/Unexposed · Regression, Linear · p = 0.15 · Slope: 7.71 · 95% CI -2.92 to 18.35
Post-hocChange in Attitude Scores From Pretest to Posttest

We asked all participants seven Likert-type scale questions about attitudes towards conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of oral health outreach importance. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant, then averaged these composite scores for both groups. We then subtracted pretest scores from posttest scores and averaged these changes for all participants as the dependent variable in multiple regression. Higher scores mean higher gains from baseline to posttest. We used group assignment (intervention or treatment) as the main independent variable while controlling for participant baseline characteristics and demographics.

Time frame:
From baseline to posttest (2 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Change in Attitude Scores From Pretest to Posttest
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Change in Attitude Scores From Pretest to Posttest-0.07 ± 1.270.05 ± 0.86
Statistical analysis
  • Exposed to GRIN Training vs Control/Unexposed · Regression, Linear · p = 0.92 · Slope: 0.43 · 95% CI -8.13 to 8.99
Post-hocChange in Self-efficacy Scores From Pretest to Posttest

We asked all participants 10 Likert-type scale questions related to perceived self-efficacy with conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of confidence in providing oral health outreach. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant, then averaged these composite scores for both groups. We then subtracted pretest scores from posttest scores and averaged these changes for all participants as the dependent variable in multiple regression. Higher scores mean higher gains from baseline to posttest. We used group assignment (intervention or treatment) as the main independent variable while controlling for participant baseline characteristics and demographics.

Time frame:
From baseline to posttest (2 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Change in Self-efficacy Scores From Pretest to Posttest
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Change in Self-efficacy Scores From Pretest to Posttest1.14 ± 0.240.46 ± 1.00
Statistical analysis
  • Exposed to GRIN Training vs Control/Unexposed · Regression, Linear · p = 0.20 · Slope: 7.66 · 95% CI -4.17 to 19.49
Post-hocChange in Intentions Scores From Pretest to Posttest

We asked all participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their intentions to conduct oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceived likelihood of providing oral health outreach in the future. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant, then averaged these composite scores for both groups. We then subtracted pretest scores from posttest scores and averaged these changes for all participants as the dependent variable in multiple regression. Higher scores mean higher gains from baseline to posttest. We used group assignment (intervention or treatment) as the main independent variable while controlling for participant baseline characteristics and demographics.

Time frame:
From baseline to posttest (2 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Change in Intentions Scores From Pretest to Posttest
score on a scaleExposed to GRIN TrainingControl/Unexposed
Change in Intentions Scores From Pretest to Posttest0.68 ± 2.291.13 ± 2.09
Statistical analysis
  • Exposed to GRIN Training vs Control/Unexposed · Regression, Linear · p = 0.39 · Slope: -9.29 · 95% CI -31.15 to 12.56

Adverse events

Collected over Baseline to 2 weeks. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Exposed to GRIN Training0/62 (0%)0/62 (0%)0/62 (0%)
Control/Unexposed0/45 (0%)0/45 (0%)0/45 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Exposed to GRIN TrainingControl/UnexposedTotal
<=18 years000
Between 18 and 65 years6143104
>=65 years101
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Exposed to GRIN TrainingControl/UnexposedTotal
Female573592
Male4812
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Exposed to GRIN TrainingControl/UnexposedTotal
Hispanic or Latino111627
Not Hispanic or Latino482674
Unknown or Not Reported101
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Exposed to GRIN TrainingControl/UnexposedTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native022
Asian011
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander101
Black or African American191635
White151429
More than one race178
Unknown or Not Reported336
Highest education level completed
Highest education level completed(Participants)Exposed to GRIN TrainingControl/UnexposedTotal
Highschool diploma/GED156
Some college20929
College degree332255
Master's degree5510
Professional degree325
Length of time serving as a community health worker
Length of time serving as a community health worker(Participants)Exposed to GRIN TrainingControl/UnexposedTotal
Less than 6 months6511
6 to 11 months7714
1 to 2 years181331
3 to 4 years91221
5 or more years20626
Paid or volunteer CHW position
Paid or volunteer CHW position(Participants)Exposed to GRIN TrainingControl/UnexposedTotal
Paid553388
Volunteer235
Both paid and volunteer4711
Number of hours of community health worker training
Number of hours of community health worker training(Participants)Exposed to GRIN TrainingControl/UnexposedTotal
None202
1 to 5 hours303
6 to 10 hours213
11 to 15 hours415
16+ hours504090

1 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.

08

Study locations

1 site
  • KDH Research & Communication
    Atlanta, Georgia 30309, United States
09

References and documents

Study documents

  • Study protocol · Mar 3, 2022
  • Statistical analysis plan · Sep 4, 2020

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 7, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05511935
Lead sponsor
KDH Research & Communication
Collaborators
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Aug 23, 2022
Start date
Jan 1, 2022
Primary completion
Aug 15, 2022
Completion
Aug 31, 2022
Results posted
Nov 7, 2024
Last update
Nov 7, 2024

Study contacts

Eric C Twombly, PhD
study chair · KDH Research & Communication

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions 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.

Other studies from this sponsor

KDH Research & Communication

Start the discussion