Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT05530603 |
Other study ID # |
2019-053 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
October 3, 2020 |
Est. completion date |
July 31, 2023 |
Study information
Verified date |
March 2024 |
Source |
University of South Dakota |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
Our objectives in this project are to develop and evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness
of the Mobile Web App Breast Cancer Screening (wMammogram) intervention that is culturally
tailored for AI women residing in rural areas. The proposed study will be a multi-method,
two-phase research project that will take place in South Dakota over a three-year period. The
two phases are: (1) developing the wMammogram intervention and (2) evaluating the feasibility
and efficacy of the wMammogram. Phase 1 incorporates a community-based participatory research
approach and a series of focus groups with various stakeholders in American Indian (AI)
communities to design a culturally informed and practically refined intervention. Phase 2
uses a randomized clinical trial (RCT) design with AI women. The wMammogram intervention will
be applied throughout a seven-day period, with assessment at three intervals: baseline
(face-to-face interview survey), one-week post-intervention (telephone survey), and six-month
follow-up (telephone survey) and post-intervention focus group (qualitative assessment).
The wMammogram intervention will be implemented with AI women using the two-arm RCT that
includes recruiting a total of 120 AI women aged 40 to 70 years and randomly assigning them
to either (a) the wMammogram intervention group (n=60) to receive culturally and personally
tailored multilevel and multimedia messages through a Mobile Web App along with health
navigator services or (b) the control group (n=60) to receive the mailing of printed
educational materials on breast cancer and relevant screening guidelines along with health
navigator services.
Hypotheses: In assessing the efficacy and feasibility of the wMammogram, Investigators
hypothesize that:
(H1)The wMammogram intervention participants will show a higher rate of mammograms received
than will participants in the educational materials intervention.
(H2)The wMammogram intervention participants will show improvements in knowledge, attitude,
and beliefs about breast cancer screening and readiness for mammography as compared to
participants in the educational materials intervention.
(H3)The wMammogram intervention participants will demonstrate greater satisfaction with and
acceptance of the intervention than would participants in the educational materials
intervention.
Description:
Sample Size and Power Analysis: Investigators will have 120 participants in both the
intervention and the control group by the six-month follow-up assessment. Considering that
the possible sample attrition at the six-month follow-up is expected to be no higher than 20%
(n=24), a total of 144 participants will be recruited for the baseline assessment; half will
be randomly assigned to intervention (n=72) and another half assigned to control condition
(n=72). Using a one-sided nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the mixed effect ANOVA at
the 0.05 level and assuming continuous scores, this sample size (60 per arm) would provide 80
percent power to reject the null hypothesis of the equality of score-changes for both groups.
The key objective of the study is to acquire preliminary estimates of breast cancer screening
rates after the intervention to assess if further study is warranted. As such, Investigators
stress on the precision with which Investigators can estimate the breast cancer screening
rate post-intervention rather than our ability to reject a specific null hypothesis. A sample
size of 60 participants for each arm reflects a compromise between keeping the scope of the
project within the objectives of a pilot study while ensuring a large enough sample size to
estimate the breast cancer screening rate post-intervention.
Quantitative Measures (Baseline, One-Week, and Six-Month Follow-Up Assessment): Measures will
be selected based on the frequency of use in cancer and health literature, psychometric
properties, previous applications with AI populations, and inputs from the Community Advisory
Board (CAB) and focus groups. The primary outcome criterion for efficacy is mammography
receipt (or a scheduled appointment) after the intervention, which will be measured by
self-report (yes or no) at six-month follow-up. The measure has been widely used and found
reliable in cancer screening research. The secondary outcome criteria for efficacy include
breast cancer knowledge, health beliefs, cultural attitudes, and intent to undergo screening.
These measures will be administered at multiple points: baseline and one-week
post-intervention. In order to assess feasibility, Investigators will measure participant
satisfaction and intervention effectiveness. These measures will be administered at one week
after the intervention. Confounding covariates (e.g., background, sociodemographic, and
health-related information) will be collected only at the baseline assessment and used for
assessing the influence of such contextual factors.
Quantitative Data Analysis: Prior to our hypotheses tests, group equivalence in terms of
baseline characteristics will be examined using t-tests and chi-square tests. For Hypothesis
1, Investigators will compare the percentage of women from each condition who receive
mammograms or have scheduled a mammography appointment using a chi-square test. Investigators
will supplement this with logistic regression analyses to adjust for confounding covariates.
For Hypothesis 2, the averages of score change (pre- to post-test) from the two conditions
will be compared using the two-sample t-test, and/or the Wilcoxon rank-sum tests after
assessing normality of the scores. The group difference in terms of changes in the given
constructs will be tested by a mixed-effect analysis of variance (ANOVA). The mixed-effect
ANOVA includes both within-subject (i.e., time: repeated measures) and between-subject
factors (i.e., group: intervention versus control) and aims to examine whether there is an
interaction between these two factors on the dependent variable. Bonferroni correction will
be used to reduce the probability of Type 1 error for multiple comparisons. Investigators
will supplement this with a regression analysis of score change in order to adjust for
confounding covariates. For Hypothesis 3, averages of general satisfaction and effectiveness
scores from each group will be compared using the two-sample t-test. Also, the percentage of
participants from each group who endorse "yes" for the intention and recommendation items
will be compared using the chi-square test. To minimize a potential non-participation bias,
Investigators will closely monitor and compare the first and fourth quartiles of responses
for differences in background variables and key constructs. Investigators will also carefully
document the response rate over the course of this project. IBM SPSS version 25 will be used
for data analyses.
Qualitative Evaluation (Six-Month Post-Intervention Focus Group): Within six months after the
completion of the wMammogram intervention, a six-month post-intervention focus group (N=10)
will be conducted with the wMammogram participants to solicit feedback concerning various
aspects of the entire intervention, effectiveness, and recommendations for improvement.
Qualitative Data Analysis for Focus Group: Focus group session will be audio-recorded, data
will be transcribed verbatim, and transcripts of conversations will be entered into a
qualitative management system for analyses (e.g., Nvivo). The accuracy of transcription will
be independently assessed by two other collaborators who will not attend the focus groups.
Data will be independently analyzed and coded by PI (Dr. Roh) and another collaborator using
qualitative content analysis.