Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT05825300 |
Other study ID # |
2021-0476-2 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
April 10, 2023 |
Est. completion date |
July 3, 2023 |
Study information
Verified date |
July 2023 |
Source |
Geisinger Clinic |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
The goal of this study is to test whether emails that inform patients they have a blood type
in need are more effective at encouraging patients to schedule and attend blood donation
appointments, compared to email messages that do not mention the patient has a blood type in
need.
Description:
There has been a years-long national shortage of several blood types in the U.S., including
in the Geisinger community. Previously, the study team collaborated with Miller Keystone,
where Geisinger refers patients who wish to donate blood and from whom Geisinger receives
blood for clinical purposes, on an outreach study to encourage blood donation in patients
with needed blood types. The study demonstrated that, compared to a no-message control group,
patient portal messages sent to patients with needed blood types increase patients'
likelihood of attending donation appointments. However, results were ambiguous with respect
to which of two message versions was most effective. One version, which stated that the
patient had a needed blood type (blood-type message), caused a numerically, but not
significantly, higher number of patients who attended appointments compared to the other
version, which did not state that the patient had a blood type in need but rather informed
the recipient of a general blood shortage (no-blood-type message).
Because Miller Keystone particularly values reaching new donors, the team ran a preregistered
exploratory analysis to test whether the messages were differently effective for new donors
compared to those who had previously donated at a Miller Keystone site. There was a
significant interaction between previous donor status (previous donor, previous non-donor)
and message type, such that previous non-donors were relatively more responsive to the
blood-type message, while previous donors were more responsive to the no-blood-type message.
However, the groups were uneven with respect to the number of patients that had previously
donated. Moreover, when the analysis was limited to patients who opened their messages, this
interaction effect disappeared: blood-type messages were still most effective in previous
non-donors, and there was no difference in message effectiveness among previous donors. These
follow-up analyses, and the unevenness of previous donors across groups, call into question
the robustness of the interaction effect.
The present study will again test whether the blood-type message is more effective than the
no-blood-type message for patients with needed blood types overall, and separately for
previous donors and non-donors. Messages will be sent via email rather than via patient
portal in the present study. Randomization will occur at the email-address level to one of
the two message types to ensure everyone using the same email address receives the same
message (although each patient will be sent an individualized message with their name; there
will be no no-contact control condition this time). Email addresses will be excluded if they
are shared by patients with different blood types. Randomization will be stratified by
whether all patients using the same email address are previous donors or not (email addresses
shared by previous donors and non-donors will be excluded).