Sharing Decision-making Program for HCC Patients Treatment Decisions

Hepatocellular Cancer Clinical Trial

Official title:

The Effectiveness of Sharing Decision-making Program Interventions in the Early Stage of HCC to Reduce Treatment Decisions Conflicts and Improving Decision-making Satisfaction

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT03926039
• Other study ID #: CMUH108-REC3-002
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: May 1, 2019
• Est. completion date: March 6, 2020

Study information

• Verified date: October 2021
• Source: National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Aim: Explore the effectiveness of sharing decision-making program interventions in the early stage of HCC to reduce treatment decisions conflicts and improving decision-making satisfaction.

Design: An experimental design will be used in the study. The 102 primary liver cancer patients, who were diagnosed with Barcelona stage(BCLC stage) 0-A, will be recruited and randomized to the control or intervention group. The intervention measures in this study "sharing decision-making plan" mainly includes sharing the decision-making talks and the decision-making assistance tools used in the process.

Description:

The effectiveness of sharing decision-making program interventions in the early stage of HCC to reduce treatment decisions conflicts and improving decision-making satisfactionHepatocarcinoma (HCC) is a high incidence and high mortality disease. Hepatocarcinoma is also a very common disease in Taiwan. Treatment options are limited to those patients with advanced Hepatocarcinoma. However, there are many options for patients with compensated cirrhosis, and small liver tumors are potentially resectable. When patients understood the detailed assessment of the disease both doctors and patients can set the best treatment goals. Sharing decision-making is a patient-centered collaborative processes that enable individuals and their healthcare providers to make decisions together, but patient engagement appears to be less optimistic and there is a lack of evidence that the link between sharing decision-making measures and patient behavior and health outcomes. When decisions are made under social stress or time constraints, people may make less than optimal decisions when they lack sufficient information or skills. Since then the treatment does not match the expected results, often result in decision regrets or arguments with the medical team, and even evolved into medical lawsuits. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness of sharing decision-making program interventions in the early stage of HCC to reduce treatment decisions conflicts and improving decision-making satisfaction. In this study, investigators took the experimental design to assess the cases of early hepatocellular carcinoma in hepato- gastroenterology, surgery and oncology clinical in a teaching hospital in the eastern part of Taiwan.

The intervention measures in this study "sharing decision-making plan" mainly includes sharing the decision-making talks and the decision-making assistance tools used in the process. According to Elwyn et.al. (2012), the decision-sharing model was proposed to intervene in the treatment decision-making of early liver cancer patients, including Choice talk, Option talk, Decision talk, and decision-making. Decision support for the process, where the investigator meets with the patient and its important others in the interdisciplinary discussion room or ward meeting room.

Second, decision assistance tools. Decision assistance tools provide information about options and outcomes, and clarify personal values to help people participate in decision making. The aim is to supplement, rather than replace, medical staff counseling (Collins et al., 2009), and the quality of decision aids is very important. Satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decision-making. Patients can benefit from computerized decision-making tools without the need to increase physician involvement.

The research tools include basic population data, clinical stage of disease, self-efficacy scale of hepatocellular carcinoma, Decision Decision Confidence Scale (DCS), decision self-efficacy scale , Decision Satisfaction Scale and Chinese Simplified-form Mandarin Health Literacy Scale.

The obtained data were collected and analyzed by SPSS20.0 for Window software. The main statistical methods include descriptive statistics, T-test, analysis of variance, Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficient and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs) ).

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 70
• Est. completion date: March 6, 2020
• Est. primary completion date: March 6, 2020
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 20 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Primary liver cancer patients (ICD 10 is C22.0) and Barcelona stage (BCLC stage) 0-A.

2. At least 20 years of age.

3. No mental illness.

4. Patients who can communicate in Mandarin or Taiwanese.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Don't know himself condition.

2. Unconscious patients.

3. Patients with liver cancer resection or partial liver resection were performed within 3 months.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Carcinoma, Hepatocellular
• Hepatocellular Cancer
• Liver Neoplasms

Intervention

Behavioral:
• sharing decision-making program
Sharing decision-making talks and decision-making assistance tools used in the process

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Taiwan	Lo-Hsu medical foundation Lotung Poh-Ai hospital	Yilan

Sponsors (2)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences	Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Taiwan, 

References & Publications (4)

Bruix J, Reig M, Sherman M. Evidence-Based Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment of Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2016 Apr;150(4):835-53. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.041. Epub 2016 Jan 12. Review. — View Citation

Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D, Sloan JA, Carriere KC, O'Neil J, Bilodeau B, Watson P, Mueller B. Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA. 1997 May 14;277(18):1485-92. — View Citation

Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997 Fall;29(3):21-43. — View Citation

Katie Lee SY, Knobf MT. Primary Breast Cancer Decision-making Among Chinese American Women: Satisfaction, Regret. Nurs Res. 2015 Sep-Oct;64(5):391-401. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000116. — View Citation

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Other	Control Preference Scale	The scale is patients make treatment decisions in life-threatening conditions. For the first time, ask patients about their preferred clinical decision-making role. Then, ask a second time for the style they experienced. The instrument doesn't have any score on a scale. Each question was counted independently, the maximum is the number of participants in each group. the minimum is zero.	1 week
Other	Decision Regret Scale	The DRS was used to evaluate the feeling of regret after making a decision. There are 5 questions on the scale. The scoring of each situation is based on a Likert scale of 1-5 points (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) for each question. The score is subtracted by 1 and then multiplied by 25, so that each question may be scored 0-100 Minute. The final score is added and averaged. The score range is 0-100 points. The higher the score, the more regretful it is, the 0 point means no regret and 100 points means very regret.	around 3 month after discharge
Primary	Decisional Conflict Scale	5 questions for a total of 16 questions, respectively, to assess the uncertainty of the subscale (10-12 questions) the subscale total score range 0-300 points , informed subscales (1-3 questions) the subscale total score range 0-300 points, values subscales (4-6 questions) the subscale total score range 0-300 points, support subscales ( 7-9 questions) the subscale total score range 0-300 points, effective decision-making scale (13-16 questions) the subscale total score range 0-300 points, Each question is scored on a Likert scale of 0-4 points (very strongly agreed to very disagree), then multiplied by 25 so that each question may score 0-100 points. A score of 0 is a good decision, and a score of 100 is the worst decision. the total score was 0 to 1600 points.	1 week
Secondary	Satisfaction With Decision Instrument	The content consists of 6 items, with a score of 1-5 points (very strongly disagreed and very agreeable) for each question. The score may be 6-30 points. The higher the score, the higher the satisfaction with the decision. A score of 6 indicates that the extreme dissatisfaction of 30 points indicates extreme satisfaction.	1 week
Secondary	Decision Self-efficacy Scale	The scale included 11 questions, and participants were asked to think about how confident they were in making informed choices in 11 situations. The scoring for each situation is scored on a Likert scale with 0-4 points (very agrees to very disagree) for each question, then multiplied by 25 so that each question may score 0-100 points. The higher the score, the more confident participant are. Each question 0 points is not confident, 100 points is very confident. total score range is 0- 1100 points	1 week
Secondary	Liver Cancer Treatment Options Related Knowledge Scale	A total of 20 questions total score of 100 points, the higher the knowledge, the better.Total scale range was 5-100 points.	1 week