Organizational Support for Evidence-based Public HealthNCT03211832

Disseminating Public Health Evidence to Support Prevention and Control of Diabetes Among Local Health Departments

A study testing Dissemination of public health knowledge in people with Organizational Support for Evidence-based Public Health, run by Washington University School of Medicine at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record

Search all trials

Trial summary

Who is it for?: Ages 21 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for: Organizational Support for Evidence-based Public Health
What is being tested?: Dissemination of public health knowledge
Could I receive a placebo?: No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people: 331 participants
Where: 1 siteUnited States
Study dates: 5 Jul 2017to 21 Jan 2021
Phase: Interventional
Are there results?: Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

Ages 21 years and older
All sexes
Healthy volunteers accepted
Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

Local Health Departments (LHDs, cluster) in the state of Missouri and corresponding public health workforce (individuals within cluster); screenings.

Who cannot join

LHDs that have less than 5 employees working in or supporting diabetes or chronic disease control, which includes program areas of diabetes prevention and management, obesity prevention, physical activity, nutrition, cardiovascular health, and cancer

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site

Prevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis
St Louis, Missouri, 63130

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: Enhancing Evidence-based Diabetes Control Among Local Health Departments

The purpose of this study is to identify and evaluate dissemination strategies to support the uptake of evidence-based programs and policies (EBPPs) for diabetes prevention and control among local-level public health practitioners. Dissemination strategies such as multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, and remote technical assistance are hypothesized to associate with improved access and use of public health evidence and organizational supports for program and policy decision making based on evidence-based public health.

Read the detailed description

Evidence-based public health approaches to prevent and control diabetes and other chronic diseases have been identified in recent decades, and could have a profound effect on diabetes incidence and quality and length of life of those diagnosed. However, barriers to implement approaches continue because of lack of organizational support, limited resources, competing priorities, and limited skill among the public health workforce. The purpose of this study is to determine effective ways to promote the adoption of evidence based public health practice related to diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control among local health departments (LHDs). This stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial aims to evaluate active dissemination strategies on local-level public health practitioners to increase adoption and use of evidence-based programs and policies for diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control among LHDs in Missouri. Twelve LHDs will be recruited and randomly assigned to one of three groups that cross over from usual practice to receive the intervention (dissemination) strategies at 8-month intervals; the intervention duration for groups ranges from 8 to 24 months. LHD staff and the university-based study team are jointly identifying, refining and selecting dissemination strategies. Intervention strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, and remote technical assistance. Evaluation methods include surveys at baseline and at each 8-month interval, abstraction of LHD chronic disease prevention program plans and progress reports, and social network analysis.

Conditions: Organizational Support for Evidence-based Public Health
Being tested: Dissemination of public health knowledge
Keywords: Dissemination research, Public health workforce, Evidence-based public health, Public health accreditation

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

Dissemination of public health knowledgeOther
Participating local health departments will help develop and choose dissemination strategies they prefer for their staff working in and supporting diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control to receive. Dissemination strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes prevention and control.

Study groups in NCT03211832
Study group	Role	What they receive
Control	No intervention	The control group will conduct usual public health practice.
Intervention	Active comparator	Participating local health departments will help develop and choose several dissemination activities they prefer for their local health department to receive. Dissemination activities may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control. Receives: Other: Dissemination of public health knowledge

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

Evidence-based Decision Making (EBDM) Competencies
Survey participants were asked to rate the perceived importance of each of 10 skills pertinent to evidence-based decision making on an 11-point ordered scale (possible values 0 not at all important to 10 very important for each skill), and to rate the perceived availability in the agency of each of the same skills from 0-10 (0 not at all available to 10 very available). A skill gap was calculated for each skill as perceived importance minus perceived availability (possible values -10 to +10 for each skill). An overall EBDM skill gap was created by taking the average across all 10 skill gaps (possible values -10 to +10). Higher scores indicate a worse outcome.
Skill items: community assessment; quantifying the issue; prioritization; action planning; adapting interventions; evaluation designs; quantitative evaluation; qualitative evaluation; economic evaluation; and communicating evidence to decision-makers. A definition for each was provided that started with the word "understand".
Measured: 24 months post baseline
Evidence-based Intervention Score
Self-reported number of evidence-based chronic disease prevention interventions implemented by the local health department from a pre-populated list of 8 evidence-based interventions to prevent diabetes and other chronic diseases (possible score 0 to 8). Higher score indicates a better outcome.
Measured: 24 months post baseline
Awareness of Culture Supportive of EBDM
Self-report Likert scale items measure personal awareness of opportunities to learn about and apply EBDM among local level chronic disease control public health practitioners. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome.
The items were: a) I am provided the time to identify evidence-based programs and practices; b) My direct supervisor recognizes the value of management practices that facilitate evidence-based decision-making; c) My work group/division offers employees opportunities to attend evidence-based-decision making trainings; and d) Top leadership in my agency (e.g., director, assistant directors) recognizes the value of evidence-based decision-making.
Measured: 24 months post baseline
Capacity and Expectations for Evidence-based Decision Making (EBDM)
Self-report Likert scale items assess perceived supervisory expectations for EBDM use and perceived work unit/division capacity to carry out EBDM. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items (possible scores 1 to 7). Higher scores mean a better outcome.
Items: a) I use EBDMin my work; b) My direct supervisor expects me to use evidence-based decision making; c) My performance is partially evaluated on how well I use evidence-based decision making in my work; d) My work group/division currently has the resources (e.g. staff, facilities, partners) to support application of evidence-based decision making; e) The staff in my work group/division has the necessary skills to carry out evidence-based decision making; f) The majority of my work group/division's external partners support use of EBDM; and g) Top leadership in my agency encourages use of EBDM.
Measured: 24 months post baseline
Resource Availability
Self-report Likert scale items measured perceived work unit's resource availability for evidence-based decision making. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome.
The items in the scale were: a) Informational resources (e.g. academic journals, guidelines, and toolkits) are available to my work group/division to promote the use of evidence-based decision making; b) My work group/division engages a diverse external network of partners that share resources to facilitate evidence-based decision making; and c) Stable funding is available for evidence-based decision making.
Measured: 24 months post baseline
Evaluation Capacity of Work Unit
Self-report Likert scale of work unit's support of community needs assessment, utilization of evaluation for pre and post program implementation as well as for dissemination purposes. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome.
Items: a) My work group/division supports community needs assessments to ensure that evidence-based decision-making approaches continue to meet community needs; b) My work group/division plans for evaluation of interventions prior to implementation; c) My work group/division uses evaluation data to monitor and improve interventions; and d) My work group/division distributes intervention evaluation findings to other organizations that can use our findings.
Measured: 24 months post baseline
EBDM Climate Cultivation
Self-report Likert scale assessing perceived health department culture supportive of EBDM, information sharing and participatory decision making. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome.
Items: a) My work group/division has access to evidence-based decision making information that is relevant to community needs; b) When decisions are made within my work group/division, program staff members are asked for input; c) Information is widely shared in my work group/division so that everyone who makes decisions has access to all available knowledge; d) My agency is committed to hiring people with relevant training or experience in public health core disciplines (e.g., epidemiology, health education, environmental health); and e) My agency has a culture that supports the processes necessary for EBDM.
Measured: 24 months post baseline
Partnerships to Support EBDM
Self-report Likert scale items assess perceived importance of partnering across sectors to share resources and address population health issues. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome.
Items: a) Our collaborative partnerships have missions that align with my agency; b) It is important to my agency to have partners who share resources (money, staff time, space, materials); c) It is important to my agency to have partners in health care to address population health issues; and d) It is important to my agency to have partners in other sectors (outside of health) to address population health issues
Measured: 24 months post baseline

Secondary outcomes (1)

Inter-agency Connectedness
The average number of links per agency is the measure of connectedness with other agencies that is reported here. The measure is from a separate self-report social network survey.
Measured: 24 months post baseline

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

5 Jul 201721 Jan 2021

First posted7 Jul 2017
Study start5 Jul 2017
Primary completion21 Aug 2020
Study completion21 Jan 2021

Resources

Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
Other trials for Organizational Support for Evidence-based Public HealthStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
More trials run by Washington University School of MedicineThe sponsor's other registered studies.
What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design

Study type: Interventional
Phase: Phase N/A
Primary purpose: Other
Allocation: Randomised
Intervention model: Crossover
Masking: None (open label)
Enrolment: 331 participants (actual)

IDs, dates and publications

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03211832
Sponsor's protocol ID: 201705026
Other IDs: 5R01DK109913
Status last verified: Jan 2023
First submitted: 6 Jul 2017
Last updated: 10 Feb 2023
Results posted: Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
Data monitoring committee: No
FDA-regulated drug: No
FDA-regulated device: No
Individual data sharing: No

Publications

Parks RG, Tabak RG, Allen P, Baker EA, Stamatakis KA, Poehler AR, Yan Y, Chin MH, Harris JK, Dobbins M, Brownson RC. Enhancing evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease control among local health departments: a multi-phase dissemination study with a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial component. Implement Sci. 2017 Oct 18;12(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0650-4.
PubMed 29047384
Jacob RR, Parks RG, Allen P, Mazzucca S, Yan Y, Kang S, Dekker D, Brownson RC. How to "Start Small and Just Keep Moving Forward": Mixed Methods Results From a Stepped-Wedge Trial to Support Evidence-Based Processes in Local Health Departments. Front Public Health. 2022 Apr 28;10:853791. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.853791. eCollection 2022.
PubMed 35570955

Study at a glance

From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Feb 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.

Official title: Enhancing Evidence-based Diabetes Control Among Local Health Departments
ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03211832
Acronym / sponsor ID: 201705026
Conditions: Organizational Support for Evidence-based Public Health
Keywords: Dissemination research, Public health workforce, Evidence-based public health, Public health accreditation
Study type: Interventional
Recruitment status: Completed
Enrolment: 331 participants (actual)
Lead sponsor: Washington University School of MedicineUniversity, hospital or other
Collaborators: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Study start: 5 Jul 2017 (actual)
Primary completion: 21 Aug 2020 (actual)
Study completion: 21 Jan 2021 (actual)
First posted: 7 Jul 2017 (actual)
Results: Posted 10 Feb 2023

Clinical summary

The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.

Detailed description

Study design

Primary purpose: Other
Allocation: Randomised
Intervention model: Crossover
Masking: None (open label)
Number of arms: 2

Arm	Type	Receives
Control	No intervention	–The control group will conduct usual public health practice.
Intervention	Active comparator	Other: Dissemination of public health knowledgeParticipating local health departments will help develop and choose several dissemination activities they prefer for their local health department to receive. Dissemination activities may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control.

Who may qualify

Ages: 21 years and older
Sex: All
Healthy volunteers: Accepted
Age groups: Adult, Older adult

Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)

Local Health Departments (LHDs, cluster) in the state of Missouri and corresponding public health workforce (individuals within cluster); screenings.

Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)

LHDs that have less than 5 employees working in or supporting diabetes or chronic disease control, which includes program areas of diabetes prevention and management, obesity prevention, physical activity, nutrition, cardiovascular health, and cancer

Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Interventions

Intervention	Type	Arms
Dissemination of public health knowledgeParticipating local health departments will help develop and choose dissemination strategies they prefer for their staff working in and supporting diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control to receive. Dissemination strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes prevention and control.	Other	Intervention

Primary outcome

Evidence-based Decision Making (EBDM) Competencies
Time frame: 24 months post baseline
Survey participants were asked to rate the perceived importance of each of 10 skills pertinent to evidence-based decision making on an 11-point ordered scale (possible values 0 not at all important to 10 very important for each skill), and to rate the perceived availability in the agency of each of the same skills from 0-10 (0 not at all available to 10 very available). A skill gap was calculated for each skill as perceived importance minus perceived availability (possible values -10 to +10 for each skill). An overall EBDM skill gap was created by taking the average across all 10 skill gaps (possible values -10 to +10). Higher scores indicate a worse outcome. Skill items: community assessment; quantifying the issue; prioritization; action planning; adapting interventions; evaluation designs; quantitative evaluation; qualitative evaluation; economic evaluation; and communicating evidence to decision-makers. A definition for each was provided that started with the word "understand".
Evidence-based Intervention Score
Time frame: 24 months post baseline
Self-reported number of evidence-based chronic disease prevention interventions implemented by the local health department from a pre-populated list of 8 evidence-based interventions to prevent diabetes and other chronic diseases (possible score 0 to 8). Higher score indicates a better outcome.
Awareness of Culture Supportive of EBDM
Time frame: 24 months post baseline
Self-report Likert scale items measure personal awareness of opportunities to learn about and apply EBDM among local level chronic disease control public health practitioners. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. The items were: a) I am provided the time to identify evidence-based programs and practices; b) My direct supervisor recognizes the value of management practices that facilitate evidence-based decision-making; c) My work group/division offers employees opportunities to attend evidence-based-decision making trainings; and d) Top leadership in my agency (e.g., director, assistant directors) recognizes the value of evidence-based decision-making.
Capacity and Expectations for Evidence-based Decision Making (EBDM)
Time frame: 24 months post baseline
Self-report Likert scale items assess perceived supervisory expectations for EBDM use and perceived work unit/division capacity to carry out EBDM. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items (possible scores 1 to 7). Higher scores mean a better outcome. Items: a) I use EBDMin my work; b) My direct supervisor expects me to use evidence-based decision making; c) My performance is partially evaluated on how well I use evidence-based decision making in my work; d) My work group/division currently has the resources (e.g. staff, facilities, partners) to support application of evidence-based decision making; e) The staff in my work group/division has the necessary skills to carry out evidence-based decision making; f) The majority of my work group/division's external partners support use of EBDM; and g) Top leadership in my agency encourages use of EBDM.
Resource Availability
Time frame: 24 months post baseline
Self-report Likert scale items measured perceived work unit's resource availability for evidence-based decision making. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. The items in the scale were: a) Informational resources (e.g. academic journals, guidelines, and toolkits) are available to my work group/division to promote the use of evidence-based decision making; b) My work group/division engages a diverse external network of partners that share resources to facilitate evidence-based decision making; and c) Stable funding is available for evidence-based decision making.
Evaluation Capacity of Work Unit
Time frame: 24 months post baseline
Self-report Likert scale of work unit's support of community needs assessment, utilization of evaluation for pre and post program implementation as well as for dissemination purposes. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. Items: a) My work group/division supports community needs assessments to ensure that evidence-based decision-making approaches continue to meet community needs; b) My work group/division plans for evaluation of interventions prior to implementation; c) My work group/division uses evaluation data to monitor and improve interventions; and d) My work group/division distributes intervention evaluation findings to other organizations that can use our findings.
EBDM Climate Cultivation
Time frame: 24 months post baseline
Self-report Likert scale assessing perceived health department culture supportive of EBDM, information sharing and participatory decision making. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. Items: a) My work group/division has access to evidence-based decision making information that is relevant to community needs; b) When decisions are made within my work group/division, program staff members are asked for input; c) Information is widely shared in my work group/division so that everyone who makes decisions has access to all available knowledge; d) My agency is committed to hiring people with relevant training or experience in public health core disciplines (e.g., epidemiology, health education, environmental health); and e) My agency has a culture that supports the processes necessary for EBDM.
Partnerships to Support EBDM
Time frame: 24 months post baseline
Self-report Likert scale items assess perceived importance of partnering across sectors to share resources and address population health issues. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. Items: a) Our collaborative partnerships have missions that align with my agency; b) It is important to my agency to have partners who share resources (money, staff time, space, materials); c) It is important to my agency to have partners in health care to address population health issues; and d) It is important to my agency to have partners in other sectors (outside of health) to address population health issues

1 secondary outcome

Inter-agency Connectedness
Time frame: 24 months post baseline

Results and safety

Results posted to the registry on 10 Feb 2023, as reported by the sponsor. Figures are copied from the record, not re-analysed. Full results on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Participant flow

Group	Started	Completed
Group 1 - Control (2 Months), Then Intervention (24 Months)	78	42
Group 2 - Control (10 Months), Then Intervention (16 Months)	85	33
Group 3 - Control (18 Months), Then Intervention (8 Months)	66	32

Primary outcome: Evidence-based Decision Making (EBDM) Competencies

Time frame: 24 months post baseline. Mean (95% Confidence Interval). Unit: score on a scale

Measure	Control n = NA	Intervention n = NA
Value	2.05 (1.87 to 2.23)	1.98 (1.82 to 2.13)

Population analysed: The unit of analysis is completed surveys due to the stepped-wedge design and having a different set of survey participants at each of the 4 survey time points. All baseline surveys were analyzed as control; at T4 all surveys were analyzed as intervention. Survey participants were health department employees. Due to staff turnover, some had left the agency between each data collection period and others hired, so additional health department staff were invited at Survey T2, T3, and T4.

Primary outcome: Evidence-based Intervention Score

Time frame: 24 months post baseline. Mean (95% Confidence Interval). Unit: units on a scale

Measure	Control n = NA	Intervention n = NA
Value	4.84 (4.61 to 5.07)	4.58 (4.36 to 4.80)

Primary outcome: Awareness of Culture Supportive of EBDM

Time frame: 24 months post baseline. Mean (95% Confidence Interval). Unit: score on a scale

Measure	Control n = NA	Intervention n = NA
Value	5.34 (5.22 to 5.47)	5.43 (5.31 to 5.54)

Primary outcome: Capacity and Expectations for Evidence-based Decision Making (EBDM)

Time frame: 24 months post baseline. Mean (95% Confidence Interval). Unit: score on a scale

Measure	Control n = NA	Intervention n = NA
Value	5.22 (5.11 to 5.33)	5.24 (5.14 to 5.35)

1 secondary outcome is reported in the full results.

Adverse events

Other adverse events reported at 0% frequency or more

Group	Serious adverse events	Other adverse events	Deaths
Control	0 of 0	0 of 0	0
Intervention	0 of 0	0 of 0	0

Limitations and caveats (from the sponsor): The stepped-wedge design allowed all 12 health departments to participate in intervention but completing surveys at 4 time points was a burden to employees. Due to staff turnover, we added new employees at each time point, and lost others due to no longer working at the health department. Responses to the quantitative survey were self-reported, which introduces the possibility of response bias. Response rates dropped at the last data collection in spring 2020 during LHD pandemic efforts.

Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…

Research links

Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Feb 2023.
Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
Background: PubMed 29047384Parks RG, Tabak RG, Allen P, Baker EA, Stamatakis KA, Poehler AR, Yan Y, Chin MH, Harris JK, Dobbins M, Brownson RC. Enhancing evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease control among local health departments: a multi-phase dissemination study with a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial component. Implement Sci. 2017 Oct 18;12(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0650-4.
Results publication: PubMed 35570955Jacob RR, Parks RG, Allen P, Mazzucca S, Yan Y, Kang S, Dekker D, Brownson RC. How to "Start Small and Just Keep Moving Forward": Mixed Methods Results From a Stepped-Wedge Trial to Support Evidence-Based Processes in Local Health Departments. Front Public Health. 2022 Apr 28;10:853791. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.853791. eCollection 2022.
Click here for more information about this study: Adoption and Implementation of evidence to Mobilize Local HealthLink provided by the sponsor.
Protocol paperLink provided by the sponsor.
Results paperLink provided by the sponsor.
Individual participant dataSharing planned: No

Referral and contact

AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.

Ross C Brownson, PhD principal investigator

Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine

1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Feb 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 10 Feb 2023). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Evidence-based Decision Making (EBDM) Competencies (time frame: 24 months post baseline). The study lists 8 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03211832, which also lists 2 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 10 Feb 2023; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 7 Nov 2026.