An interventional study of Shared decision-making support tool in Cognitive Abnormality, sponsored by University of Wisconsin, Madison. Recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 50 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-28.
Sponsored by University of Wisconsin, Madison · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
Help build ClinicalTrials.gg — short surveys, remote interviews or testing, in your language. Take part →
Among 24 studies in Alzheimer Disease by University of Wisconsin, Madison — 6 open to participants now, 6 under way, none of them phase 3. Alzheimer Disease · University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Among the 24 studies in Alzheimer Disease by University of Wisconsin, Madison, this one is the 8th largest by planned enrollment of the 17 interventional ones that give a count, is one of 3 that started in 2026, is one of 6 with no phase, and was the 24th registered.
3,968 studies on the registry are indexed under Alzheimer Disease; 928 are open to participants now.
Browse Alzheimer Disease studies →6 of the 24 studies in Alzheimer Disease by University of Wisconsin, Madison are open now, in 1 country. Recruiting first, the newest first:
University of Wisconsin, Madison · Sites in United States
Ages 60+ · Healthy volunteers
University of Wisconsin, Madison · Sites in United States
Ages 40–80 · Healthy volunteers
University of Wisconsin, Madison · Sites in United States
Ages 18+ · Healthy volunteers
University of Wisconsin, Madison · Sites in United States
Ages 45–89 · Healthy volunteers
University of Wisconsin, Madison · Sites in United States
Ages 18+ · Healthy volunteers
By country, each count listing its studies:
Of the 643 Alzheimer Disease studies recruiting now, 284 (44%) set no upper age limit and 55 (9%) stop at 75 or younger; 34 take children under 18; 285 take healthy volunteers.
This study: 50 Years and older · all sexes · healthy volunteers too.
The full table on the hub →This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
24 studies; the count open now beside each. This study's row is marked.
A study in two phases is counted once above. Listed by phase, each with its combined phases: Phase 1 2 · Phase 2 8 · Phase 3 2 · Phase 4 1
First in 2001; this study’s year is marked. 3 started in 2026.
By drug class, each counting the studies that test any of its medicines:
This study's planned enrollment of 70 is close to the median of 70 across 3,021 interventional studies indexed under Alzheimer Disease.
Median enrollment 42 across the 17 interventional studies, 206 across the 7 observational. Of the 18 that completed or were terminated, 8 (44%) have results posted.
This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
University of Wisconsin, Madison is the lead sponsor of 1,189 studies on the registry; 182 are open to participants now.
Of its 157 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 118 (75%) have results posted.
2 of the studies in Alzheimer Disease by University of Wisconsin, Madison that are under way reach primary completion within a year, 0 of them phase 3. Phase 3 first, then by date:
| Study | Primary completion |
|---|---|
| NCT05592366University of Wisconsin, MadisonDementia Care Partner Hospital Assessment Tool | 2027-05 |
| NCT07812337University of Wisconsin, MadisonEvaluation of a Decision-Support Tool for Blood Biomarker Testing for Alzheimer's Disease in Primary Care | 2027-11-15 |
Add all 2 to your calendar (.ics) → With an account.
Among the 24 studies in Alzheimer Disease by University of Wisconsin, Madison, from their registry updates:
This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
The goal of the current study is to evaluate a decision-support tool intended to help primary care providers (PCPs) communicate with patients about blood biomarker testing for Alzheimer's Disease, enhancing shared-decision making and information sharing in the clinical space. The main questions it aims to answer are:
This pilot study will determine the acceptability and usability of a decision-support tool for primary care providers (PCPs) and assess the feasibility of recruitment techniques in preparation for a later trial. The study includes two high-fidelity simulation components.
Simulation 1: The investigators will assess the usability and acceptability of the decision-support tool through direct observation and surveys of PCPs participating in high-fidelity simulations of clinical encounters (N=15). The hypothesis is that the decision-support tool will be acceptable and usable by PCPs.
Simulation 2: The investigators will compare the effect of the decision-support tool on shared decision-making (SDM) in high-fidelity simulated clinical encounters conducted with the tool versus without the tool (N=25 per arm). The hypothesis is that shared decision-making will increase in encounters using the intervention.
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria (PCP): none
Participant Exclusion Criteria:
There will be no exclusion based upon sex/gender, race, or ethnicity.
In Simulation 1, 15 PCPs will complete simulated clinical encounters with standardized patients after completing trainings on how to use the decision-support tool. In Simulation 2, a different group of 3-5 PCPs will see patients during simulated clinical encounters without using the decision-support too for the first half. In the second half, these PCPs will complete trainings on how to use the tool and then see the second half of the participants using the tool.
Other: Shared decision-making support tool
Based on previous data analysis, the decision-support tool is intended to facilitate discussions between the patients and their providers regarding the Phospho-Tau blood test. It functions as a flowchart to provide clear, accessible information about the blood test that will assist providers in discussions around guide the patients through navigating a diagnostic workups for memory problems.
Effectiveness of the tool on shared decision-making as measured by OPTION-5 Score
Effectiveness of the tool on shared decision-making will be measured by OPTION-5 score, a validated measurement to quantitatively evaluated shared decision-making process from the observers' perspective. The total range of scores is from 0-100 where higher scores indicate greater patient involvement
Time frame: This is a single time point outcome measure. In Simulation 2, providers participants will complete OPTION-5 immediately after they participate in the high fidelity clinical encounter session.
Effectiveness of the tool on shared decision-making assessed by SDM-Q-9.
SDM-Q-9 is a 9-item questionnaire that evaluates the shared decision-making (SDM) process from the patient's perspective. Individual items range from "completely disagree" (0) to "completely agree" (5), yielding a raw sum score between 0 and 45, where higher scores demonstrate increased effectiveness.
Time frame: This is a single time point outcome measure. In Simulation 2, patients participants will complete SDM-Q-9 immediately after they participate in the high fidelity clinical encounter session.
Acceptability and usability of the tool as measured by an adapted System Usability Scale (SUS)
The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a short 10-item questionnaire that presents a subjective assessments of usability. The scores are calculated by adjusting odd- and even-numbered item responses, summing the adjusted scores (0-40), and multiplying the total by 2.5 to produce a final score ranging from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate increased acceptability and usability.
Time frame: In both simulation 1 and simulation 2, provider participants complete the SUS immediately after they have completed the high fidelity clinical encounter session with a patient participant or a standardized patient.
Acceptability and usability of the tool as measured by Practitioner Opinion Survey
The Practitioner opinion survey (POS) is a questionnaire that contains 15 items that assess the usability and acceptability of the shared decision-making tool. The total score range is from 15-75, with higher summed score indicating higher usability and acceptability from the perspective of the providers.
Time frame: In both simulation 1 and simulation 2, provider participants complete the POS immediately after they have completed the high fidelity clinical encounter session with a patient participant or a standardized patient.
Plan to share: No — There is currently not a plan to make IPD available.
Started Oct 2026 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Nov 2027, 13 months after the start.
Of 885 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Alzheimer Disease, half reached primary completion within 30 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 15 and three quarters within 51. This study's planned 13 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 962 studies reached it within 29 months; a quarter within 15 and three quarters within 51.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
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 ↗
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet 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 Wisconsin, Madison →