Internet-Based Intervention
OtherReceive web-based CPM-DA
NCT Number: NCT03061175
This pilot randomized clinical trial studies how well a web-based decision aid works in improving informed decisions in patients with stage 0-IIIA breast cancer considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). A web-based decision aid (DA) may help doctors determine how patients make decisions about whether or not to have contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
Female
Interventional
Not applicable
Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts, United States
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:
I. To develop a feasible web-based decision aid (DA).
SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:
I. To provide preliminary data on the impact of the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM)-DA on preparedness to make the CPM decision, decisional conflict, CPM knowledge, psychosocial factors, perceived risk for cancer in the healthy/breast/metastatic disease, cancer recurrence/metastasis worry, cancer distress and intention to have CPM.
OUTLINE:
PHASE I (PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING): Patients attend an interview and are asked questions about experiences with CPM, reasons they chose and did not choose CPM, and CPM satisfaction for 60 minutes. Patients then receive access to web-based CPM-DA and attend an interview over 90 minutes to provide feedback on module and to complete a prototype evaluation.
PHASE II (CPM-DA FEASIBILITY TRIAL): Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms.
ARM I: Patients undergo usual care (UC) available to patients considering CPM and receive information from a medical oncologist about CPM.
ARM II: Patients receive a website address, a secure username and password, and instructions for using the web-based CPM-DA.
After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up at 2-4 weeks and 6 months.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Receive web-based CPM-DA
Ancillary studies
Time frame: 2-4 week follow up
CPM knowledge is a 10-item multiple-choice measure developed by author Kirsten and Smith. Scores range from 0-100% correct with a higher score equaling more correct knowledge items. Items assessed understanding of the definition of CPM, surgical recovery time and risks/side effects, whether or not CPM improves survival, and whether CPM reduced the risk for disease progression. Will characterize the data using standard methods (estimated marginal means, standard errors, and Cohen's d effect sizes) separately by study arm. At follow-up scores will be reported as the difference between the knowledge score at two time points- the baseline knowledge score and follow-up knowledge score for both the CPM-DA arm and the UC arm.
Time frame: 2-4 week follow up
Preparedness for the CPM decision was assessed using a 16-item scale adapted from the Ottawa Preparation for Decision Making scale modified to address the CPM decision. Items evaluated the amount of and satisfaction with information about CPM. Scores were reported as a mean across the items and ranged from 1-4 with 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2= Moderately Disagree; 3 = Moderately Agree; 4= Strongly Agree Higher scores = more prepared. Outcomes reported as estimated marginal means, standard errors, and effect size measures for usual care and B-Sure decision aid conditions.
Time frame: 2-4 week follow up
The Ottawa Decisional Conflict scale has 16 items and five subscales: support for the decision, uncertainty about the decision, level of relevant information, clarity of relevant values, and effective decision. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0= Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree). Scores for the five subscales were calculated by an average that was multiplied by 25, which is recommended by the scale's developers. Thus, scores can range from 0 (no decision conflict) to 100 (high decision conflict). Higher scores indicate more decisional conflict.
Time frame: 2-4 week follow up
Self-efficacy was a 3-item measure of confidence in the ability to manage worries and uncertainty about a possible recurrence of breast cancer, concerns about future surveillance, and worries about undergoing future surveillance. Results reported as Estimated marginal means, standard errors, and effect size measures for usual care and B-Sure decision aid conditions. Scores were reported as the mean across the 3 items and ranged from 1 = Not at all confident; 2 = Somewhat confident; 3 = Moderately confident; 4 = Very confident; 5 = Extremely confident. Higher scores indicate more self-efficacy.
Time frame: 2-4 week follow-up
Worry is measured by a single item that asks how worried the participant is about having another form of breast cancer on a four-point Likert scale 1= not at all worried and 4 = very worried. Higher scores indicate more worry. Results reported as estimated marginal means, standard errors, and effect size measures for usual care and B-Sure decision aid conditions
Time frame: 2-4 week follow up
Reasons for CPM were measured by an 11-item scale developed after a review of the qualitative and quantitative literature on motivations for CPM and interviews with women who chose or did not choose CPM. Scored were reported as a mean score across the 11 items. The scale was scored on a 1-4 scale from not at all important to Yes, extremely important and Higher score = more reasons/motivations. Outcomes reported as Estimated marginal means, standard errors, and effect size measures for usual care and B-Sure decision aid conditions
Time frame: 2-4 week follow-up
Perceived risk was measured by two items. One item assessed contralateral breast cancer risk risk after unilateral mastectomy and radiation. The second item assessed perceived risk for chest wall recurrence after CPM. The first item asked "Out of 100 women with early breast cancer are treated with a single mastectomy or lumpectomy and radiation, about how many will develop breast cancer in the "other breast" in the 5 years after treatment? ___ women out of 100". The second item assessed risk for chest wall recurrence after bilateral mastectomy using the same scale 2. "If 100 women with early breast cancer have both breasts removed, how many will have breast cancer come back in the chest wall area of the "other breast" in the five years after treatment?". Outcomes reported as Estimated marginal means and standard errors for usual care and B-Sure decision aid conditions of the # out of 100 that women reported.
Time frame: 2-4 week follow up
The scale has 27 items and four subscales: usefulness, ease of use, ease of learning, and satisfaction. Scales ranged from 1-7 with 1 being not at all or strongly disagree up to 7 being definitely or strongly agree.
Time frame: 2-4 week follow up
Basic descriptive information will be gathered regarding the length of time modules are viewed. B-Sure use will be assessed by average time spent in B-Sure
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Other
Facilitating Informed Decisions for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy
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.
NCT03139435
Breast Carcinoma In Situ, Breast Diseases
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT03345420
Adenocarcinoma, Breast Carcinoma In Situ
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT02400060
Breast Carcinoma In Situ, Breast Diseases
Goldsboro, North Carolina, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT02728596
Agranulocytosis, Breast Carcinoma In Situ
Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States
View Trial Details