An interventional study of IDeA for Hip Fracture and Non-IDeA for hip fracture in Hip Fracture Surgeries, High Risk Population of Hip Fractures and Decision Surrogate of Hip Fixations, sponsored by Taipei Medical University WanFang Hospital. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 20 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-02.
Sponsored by Taipei Medical University WanFang Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
This study aims to improve how patients, families, and healthcare professionals work together to make important medical decisions, especially in cases involving hip fractures. Making treatment decisions after a hip fracture can be challenging, as it often involves weighing different options, risks, and expected outcomes. These decisions are particularly important for older adults, who may have other health conditions or personal priorities that influence their choices.
The study builds on previous research showing that Patient Decision Aids (PDAs) are valuable tools in supporting shared decision making (SDM). Shared decision making is a collaborative process in which healthcare providers and patients make decisions together, using both the best available medical evidence and the patient's personal values, preferences, and life circumstances. Rather than simply following a doctor's recommendation, patients are supported in understanding their options and actively participating in decisions about their care.
Patient Decision Aids are designed to make complex medical information easier to understand. They present clear, balanced, and structured information about available treatment options, including potential benefits, risks, and uncertainties. Many PDAs also use visual elements such as charts, diagrams, or icons to help users better grasp the information. Research has shown that these tools can improve patients' knowledge about their condition, increase their confidence in making decisions (known as decision self-efficacy), and lead to greater satisfaction with the decisions made. At the same time, PDAs can reduce decisional conflict, which refers to feelings of uncertainty, confusion, or stress when choosing between options. These benefits have been particularly evident in older populations and in decisions related to surgeries, such as joint replacement.
Despite these advantages, there is currently a lack of decision aids specifically designed for hip fracture-related decisions. Hip fractures are a common and serious health issue, especially among older adults, and they often require timely decisions about whether to undergo surgery, what type of surgery to choose, and how to manage recovery. This study seeks to address this gap by developing and evaluating a PDA tailored specifically for hip fracture treatment decisions.
The main objective of this study is to assess the usability of this newly developed decision aid. Usability refers to how easy the tool is to use, how clear and understandable the information is, and how helpful it is in supporting decision making. The PDA developed in this study combines clinical evidence with individual patient preferences and presents the information in a visual and user-friendly format. Its goal is to help patients, their families, and healthcare professionals make decisions that are consistent with what matters most to the patient.
Importantly, this study does not involve real medical treatment or interventions. Instead, it uses simulated scenarios in which participants are asked to imagine themselves or a loved one facing a hip fracture and needing to make treatment decisions. Because the study is based on simulation, there are no physical or medical risks involved.
The research is designed as an online randomized controlled trial with a parallel-group and pre-test/post-test structure. A total of 450 participants will be recruited. Eligible participants include individuals aged 20 and above who have experienced a hip fracture, have a family member who has experienced one, or belong to a group at higher risk of hip fractures.
Participation in the study is entirely voluntary. Participants have full freedom to decide whether to join and can withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. Their participation or non-participation will not affect their medical care in any way.
At the beginning of the study, participants will complete a pre-test questionnaire to assess their baseline knowledge, confidence, and perceptions related to decision making. They will then be randomly assigned to one of two groups: an intervention group that uses the hip fracture decision aid, or a control group that does not use the tool. Participants will then take part in a simulated decision-making activity, which is expected to take about 30 to 60 minutes. After completing the scenario, they will fill out a post-test questionnaire.
All data collected during the study will be handled digitally and securely. Personal information will be removed so that participants cannot be identified, ensuring privacy and confidentiality. The researchers will analyze the data using appropriate statistical methods, depending on the type and distribution of the data collected. They will compare the two groups to evaluate differences in key outcomes, including knowledge about hip fracture treatment, confidence in decision making, level of decisional conflict, and satisfaction
This study draws upon multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses to affirm that Patient Decision Aids (PDAs) play a critical role in shared decision making (SDM). PDAs have been shown to enhance medical knowledge, decision self-efficacy, and decision satisfaction while reducing decisional conflict, with particularly notable benefits in geriatric care and joint surgery. However, there remains a lack of decision aids specifically addressing hip fracture-related decisions, and this study aims to fill that gap. The objective of this study is to evaluate the usability of a PDA developed for surgical decision-making in hip fracture cases. This PDA integrates patient preferences with clinical evidence and presents the information through visual formats to support patients, families, and healthcare professionals in making value-congruent medical decisions. As the study involves tool testing, it is conducted through simulated scenarios without actual clinical intervention or risk. The research design is an online randomized parallel-group pre-post controlled trial. Participants include individuals aged 20 and above who have either experienced a hip fracture, are family members of such patients, or belong to high-risk populations. The target sample size is 450 participants. Participation is entirely voluntary, with full autonomy to join or withdraw at any time, and participation does not impact clinical care. After completing the pre-test questionnaire, participants will be randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group, undergoing a 30-60 minute simulated decision-making scenario, followed by a post-test questionnaire. Data collection and analysis will be fully digital and de-identified. Depending on the data characteristics, appropriate statistical tests will be prioritized to analyze differences in outcomes such as knowledge, self-efficacy, decisional conflict, and satisfaction. The ultimate goal of this study is to optimize the decision aid tool, promote patient-centered medical practice, and lay the groundwork for its future application in real-world clinical decision-making.
842 studies on the registry are indexed under Hip Fractures; 165 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 450 is above the median of 86 across 533 interventional studies indexed under Hip Fractures.
Browse Hip Fractures studies →Taipei Medical University WanFang Hospital is the lead sponsor of 201 studies on the registry; 20 are open to participants now.
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:
The Non-IDeA group serves control group with online health education materials regarding hip fracture interventions without interactive weighted decision support.
Other: Non-IDeA for hip fracture
The IDeA group serves experimental group with online health education materials regarding hip fracture interventions and an interactive weighted decision tool.
Other: IDeA for Hip Fracture
In the IDeA group, participants are provided with the Integrated Decision Aid (IDeA), featuring digital educational materials and an interactive decision tool presented across two panel pages. The educational content encompasses fundamental information, benefits, risks, and costs of two fixation options, ensuring uniformity between the two groups. The decision tool in the IDeA group employs Multiple-criteria decision-making method, enabling participants to select relevant considerations and assign weights to aid in decision making.
In the Non-IDeA group, participants will receive digital educational materials and straightforward decision questions within two panel pages. The educational content encompasses fundamental information, benefits, risks, and costs of two fixation options, ensuring uniformity between the two groups. The Non-IDeA group is presented with simple decision questions on the second panel page, utilizing a 10-point Likert scale for responses.
Knowledge of hip fracture surgery
Five self-developed true and false questions regarding hip fracture surgeries. The minimum and maximum values are 0 and 5. Higher scores mean a better knowledge on hip fracture surgery.
Time frame: From enrollment at baseline to one hour after treatment.
Decision self-efficacy
Decision self-efficacy will be measured using the Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (DSES) by Bunn H. and O'Connor A. (1996). The minimum and maximum values of the DSES are 0 and 44. Higher scores mean a stronger self-efficacy in making decision.
Time frame: From enrollment at baseline to one hour after treatment.
Decisional conflict
Decisional conflict will be measured using the SURE scale that consists of four yes/no questions based on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) by Ferron Parayre, A., Labrecque, M., Rousseau, M., Turcotte, S., \& Légaré, F. (2014). The minimum and maximum values of SURE are 0 and 4. Higher scores mean a lower decisional conflict.
Time frame: From enrollment at baseline to one hour after treatment.
Decisional satisfaction
Decisional satisfaction will be measured using the Satisfaction with Decision (SWD) scale by Holmes-Rovner et al. (1996) and Wills \& Holmes-Rovner (2003). The minimum and maximum values of the SWD are 6 and 30. Higher scores mean a higher satisfaction in decision making.
Time frame: From enrollment at baseline to one hour after treatment.
Style of decisional control
Style of decisional control will be measured using the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) by Degner, L. F., Sloan, J. A., \& Venkatesh, P. (1997). The CPS is a categorical scale for different style of control preference without minimum or maximum values.
Time frame: From enrollment at baseline to one hour after treatment.
Perceives in AI
Perceives in AI will be measured using the tool that has been introduced in the AMAILED model by Kang, E., Chen, D., \& Chen, Y. (2022). This tool consists of two parts: trust and perceived usefulness of AI. The minimum and maximum values of perceives in AI are 7 and 35. Higher scores mean a higher trust or perceived usefulness of AI.
Time frame: One hour after treatment.
Intention to use AI
Intention to use AI will be measured using the tool that has been introduced in the AMAILED model by Kang, E., Chen, D., \& Chen, Y. (2022). The minimum and maximum values are 3 and 15. Higher scores mean a higher intention to use AI.
Time frame: One hour after treatment.
No study locations are listed for this record.
Start is estimated for Dec 2026; primary completion for Nov 2027, 11 months later.
Of 221 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Hip Fractures, half reached primary completion within 27 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 10 and three quarters within 55. This study's planned 11 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 237 studies reached it within 29 months; a quarter within 10 and three quarters within 57.
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 ↗
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Oct 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.
Taipei Medical University WanFang Hospital →