An interventional study of Electronic Decision Support Tool in Pancreas Cancer, sponsored by UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 99 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-05.
Sponsored by UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention
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.
3,896 studies on the registry are indexed under Pancreatic Neoplasms; 1,007 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 40 is below the median of 47 across 2,932 interventional studies indexed under Pancreatic Neoplasms.
Browse Pancreatic Neoplasms studies →UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center is the lead sponsor of 429 studies on the registry; 97 are open to participants now.
Of its 33 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 26 (79%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Patients eligible for pancreatic cancer screening will use an electronic decision support tool during clinical care to support shared decision-making regarding pancreatic cancer screening.
Behavioral: Electronic Decision Support Tool
Patients eligible for pancreatic cancer screening will receive usual clinical care without use of the electronic 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.
Acceptability of the decision support tool
Participant-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").
Time frame: Up to 3 months
Feasibility, Barriers, and Facilitators of Implementing the Decision Support Tool - Recruitment Rate
Recruitment 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.
Time frame: Up to 3 months
Feasibility, barriers, and facilitators of implementing the decision support tool - retention rate
Retention 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.
Time frame: Up to 3 months
Change in score on 5 question knowledge assessment
Difference 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.
Time frame: Up to 3 months
Rate of Decision-Concordant Care
If 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
Time frame: Up to 3 months
Duration of the clinic visit
Duration 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.
Time frame: Up to 3 months
Patient-reported assessment of shared decision-making quality -1
Patient-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.
Time frame: Up to 3 months
Patient-reported assessment of shared decision-making quality -2
Patient-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.
Time frame: Up to 3 months
Patient-reported assessment of decisional conflict
Patient-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.
Time frame: Up to 3 months
Plan to share: Yes — De-identified individual participant data (IPD) underlying published results will be made available to qualified researchers upon reasonable request, beginning one year after publication.
Time frame: One year after publication
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Nov 2026. 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.
UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center →