HPTC Versus AFSM in Diabetic Foot Ulcers
NCT07781917
Cardiovascular Diseases, Diabetes Complications
Dhaka, Bangladesh
View Trial DetailsNCT Number: NCT07781111
The ProActive study aims to investigate the feasibility of integrating a proactive palliative care approach into routine care for people with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU).
The ProActive model includes procedures to identify patients who may benefit from a palliative approach and structured serious illness conversations (SIC) addressing patients' health situation, concerns, priorities, and preferences for care. Relatives may be involved when appropriate.
The study examines the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the ProActive model and its implementation from the perspectives of patients, relatives, and healthcare professionals. It also evaluates the feasibility of outcome measures and data collection procedures for a future effectiveness study and examines the procedures used to identify patients who may benefit from the intervention.
The feasibility study is conducted at two DFU clinics in Denmark and consists of four complementary sub-studies using qualitative and quantitative methods.
Trial opening soon.
Get Notified18 year and older
All sexes
Observational
People with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) may live with substantial symptom burden, impaired quality of life, uncertainty, and complex care needs. Despite the serious health consequences associated with DFU, a palliative approach is not routinely integrated into DFU care. The ProActive study therefore investigates the feasibility of integrating a proactive palliative care approach into routine DFU care.
The ProActive model includes systematic procedures for identifying patients who may benefit from a palliative approach and structured serious illness conversations (SIC). The conversations provide an opportunity to discuss the patient's understanding of their health situation, concerns, priorities, and preferences for future care. Relatives may participate when appropriate.
Healthcare professionals at the participating DFU clinics receive training and support to deliver the intervention and integrate it into existing clinical practice. The implementation process is informed by the Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions, with particular attention to context, stakeholder involvement, and uncertainties related to feasibility.
Study 1 investigates the feasibility of the ProActive model and its implementation from the perspective of healthcare professionals. Data are collected through observations during implementation activities and focus group interviews with healthcare professionals (N=14). Particular attention is given to the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the intervention and its implementation in routine DFU care.
Study 2 explores patients' and relatives' experiences of the ProActive model and SIC. Patients participating in the intervention, and relatives when applicable, are invited to qualitative interviews exploring their experiences of the conversation and the relevance and acceptability of introducing a proactive palliative approach in DFU care. The study includes up to 20 patients and their relatives.
Study 3 evaluates the feasibility of outcome measures and data collection procedures intended for use in a future effectiveness evaluation. Patient-, relative-, and healthcare professional-reported measures are collected to assess completion, timing, participant burden, and the suitability of the selected measures and procedures. The study includes up to 50 patients and their relatives where applicable, and 14 healthcare professionals.
Study 4 evaluates the procedures used to identify and recruit patients who may benefit from the ProActive model. All patients with DFU referred to the participating clinics during the 12-month test phase (N=400) are included in a retrospective assessment of identification and recruitment procedures and selected clinical outcomes.
Findings from the four sub-studies will be integrated to assess the overall feasibility of the ProActive model and its implementation and to identify refinements needed before a future evaluation of effectiveness.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Study 1-3:
Inclusion criteria
Health professionals:
Patient and relatives
Exclusion criteria
Healthcare professionals:
-Not involved in DFU care or in the implementation or delivery of the ProActive model at the participating sites.
Patients and relatives:
Study 4:
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Time frame: After the 3-month test phase
Acceptability of the ProActive model will be assessed among clinicians using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM). AIM consists of 4 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Higher scores indicate greater perceived acceptability.
Time frame: After the 3-month test phase
Feasibility of the ProActive model will be assessed among clinicians using the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM). FIM consists of 4 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Higher scores indicate greater perceived feasibility.
Time frame: After the 3-month test phase
Appropriateness of the ProActive model will be assessed among clinicians using the Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM). IAM consists of 4 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Higher scores indicate greater perceived appropriateness.
Time frame: After the 3-month test phase
Clinicians' experiences of implementing ProActive in routine diabetic foot ulcer care will be explored through post-intervention focus group interviews. Interviews will address implementation, local adaptation, interdisciplinary collaboration, barriers and facilitators, and integration into routine clinical practice.
Time frame: Approximately 3 weeks after the Status Conversation
Patient and relative experiences of ProActive will be explored through semi-structured interviews after participation in a Status Conversation. Interviews will address experiences of being met with a proactive palliative care approach, perceived relevance and timing of the Status Conversation, preparation, emotional impact, involvement of relatives, and perceived benefits and challenges.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, and 3 months after the Status Conversation
Feasibility of patient-reported questionnaire completion will be assessed descriptively using response rates, completeness of questionnaire data, missing data, and timing of completion for patient-reported questionnaires.
Time frame: During the 12-month test phase, with retrospective assessment after 1-year follow-up
Feasibility of identification procedures will be assessed descriptively using the proportion of eligible patients assessed for potential relevance for a Status Conversation, identified as potentially relevant, offered a Status Conversation, and accepting or declining the conversation.
Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.
Trine Herskind Hasløv, MSc
CONTACT
Ulla Riis Madsen, PhD
CONTACT
Ulla Riis Madsen
Other
The ProActive Study- Integrating a Proactive and Palliative Care Approach to Diabetic Ulcer Care. A Feasibility Study.
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT07781917
Cardiovascular Diseases, Diabetes Complications
Dhaka, Bangladesh
View Trial DetailsNCT07581262
Cardiovascular Diseases, Diabetes Complications
View Trial DetailsNCT07290673
Arterial Occlusive Diseases, Arteriosclerosis
Hollywood, Florida, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07452354
Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Diagnosis, Cardiovascular Diseases
Beijing, Beijing Municipality, China
View Trial Details